MEADE 


PROCEEDINGS 


4JK 
1C 1 
’°py 


OF THE 

l ONENTS OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION, 

AT PUBLIC MEETINGS, 

HELD IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, 

February 15 and 18, 1840 ; 

WITH THE ADDRESS OF PHILIP R. FENDALL, ESQ. 


j> of Washington, 

3 


In pursuance of public notice and invitation, given through the public prints, a 
large number of the citizens of the District of Columbia opposed to the present 
administration of the Government, and to the re-election of Martin Van Buren 
as President of the United States, assembled at the old Theatre, in Washington, 
on Saturday, the 15th of February, at 11 o’clock A. M. 

The meeting being called to order by Mr. Richard S. Coxe, Gen. Roger C. 
Weigiitman was, upon the motion of the same gentleman, chosen President. 

On motion : 

Raphael Sem.mes, of Georgetown, 

William A. Bradley, 

William L. Brent, 

Jacob A. Bender, 

Benjamin Ogle Tayloe, 

Samuel Isaacs, of Alexandria, 
were chosen Vice Presidents; and William Hayman, of Georgetown, and Richard 
Wallacii, of Washington, Secretaries. 

On motion, 

Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed by the President, to draught and report 
resolutions for the action of this meeting. 

Whereupon the President appointed the following gentlemen on the com¬ 
mittee: Samuel Harrison Smith, Richard S. Coxe, Philip R. Fendall, 
Jacob Gideon, jr., Dr. William Sothoron, David A. Hall,George Watter- 
ston. 

The meeting being then addressed upon the subject of an adjournment to a more 
convenient hour and day, by Messrs. William L. Brent and Richard S. Coxe, 
it was, on motion of Mr. Gideon, adjourned to Tuesday evening next, the 18th 
instant, at 7 o’clock, P. M., to receive the report of the committee ; at which 
time, and at the same place, a general attendance of the citizens of the District 
opposed to the present Administration is invited. 

WILLIAM HAYMAN, 


RICHARD WALLACH 


.! 


Secretaries. 


ADJOURNED MEETING.— Tuesday, February 18. 

At a quarter past seven, P.M., the president; General Weigiitman, having taken 
the chair, read a communication from Alexandria, staling that a large number of 
the citizens of that town, intending to participate in the meeting, had engaged a 
steamboat for the purpose of bringing them to this city, but that, on account of the 
density of the fog, the boat would not venture out. 




2 


Mr. Fendall, on behalf of the committee* appointed to draught and report res¬ 
olutions for the action of the meeting, then reported the following : 

1. Resolved , That the people of the District of Columbia, though placed by the Constitution 
of the United States under the “exclusive legislation” of Congress, are not thereby subjected to 
the absolute dominion of the Federal Government, or of any other power; that a condition so 
slavish was not contemplated by either their parent States in ceding the territory now constitu¬ 
ting said District, by the framers of the Constitution in authorizing Congress to accept, nor by 
Congress in accepting, the cession; that at any and all times since the adoption of the Constitu¬ 
tion, a construction of that instrument involving an anomaly so abhorrent to its spirit would have 
been repudiated by Congress itself, as well as by the whole people of the United States, and by 
none of them more indignantly than by the people of Virginia and Maryland, from which States 
this District was dismembered; and that, however improvident may have been the omission to 
secure to the citizens of such District, by a constitutional tenure, the right of suffrage, it was not 
expected that they should themselves voluntarily aggravate the evils of the omission by feeling 
no interest in public affairs ; nor was it intended to debar them from giving all the force which 
their political circumstances might permit, to their opinions on the action of the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment. 

2. Resolved, That, on the contrary, the people of the District of Columbia are citizens of the 
United States, holding, like their fellow-citizens of the several States, a deep stake in the liber¬ 
ties, the honor, and the prosperity of a common country ; that, whatever may be the degree of 
their political depression, the lower that degree the more vital is their interest in wakening national 
attention to the conduct of rulers irresponsible to them||^vQs; .that, as their position is peculiarly 
favorable for observing the action of the Federal Government, so. the history of the Federal Con¬ 
stitution, their own particular concernment in its administration, and their general duties as citi¬ 
zens of the Union, admonish them to impart to their fellow-citizens the results of their scrutiny; 
and that their destitution of the elective franchise, instead of impairing their right, or absolving 
them from the obligation, of taking part in national affairs, makes it their bounden duty to improve 
the more diligently, and to exert to the uttermost, the moral influences of their locality as the 
political centre of the republic. 

3. Resolved, That though constantly observant of the action of the Federal Government, from 
its commencement to the present time, and though occasionally differing in political opinions 
from their rulers as well as among themselves, the people of the District of Columbia felt no suf¬ 
ficient cause for assuming the office, contingently devolved on them by the fathers of the Consti¬ 
tution, of sounding an alarm to their fellew-citizens, until a comparatively recent period; when 
an administrative system was introduced by President Jackson, and inexorably enforced during 
his two official terms, operating a practical change in the Constitution, and subversive of the 
public liberty, the public morals, and the public interests; that President Van Buren, faithful to 
his pledges “to tread generally in the footsteps of” his “illustrious predecessor,” has adopted, 
acted on, and extended this system; and that, therefore, it is our duty again, and in yet louder 
tones, to “sound the alarm” to our countrymen. 

4. Resolved, That, without undertaking to detail all the causes of this alarm, we deem it suf¬ 
ficient to advert to the following : 

The augmentation of the public expenditures to an extent wholly disproportionate to the in¬ 
creased population and business of the country : 

The struggle of the President with the people to obtain perpetual control over their money, 
which his predecessor had unlawfully seized—a “pernicious project,” in name sub-Treasury, or 
Independent Treasury, but in substance a Treasury bank, independent of the people—a project 
which is obtruded on Congress in defiance of their repeated rejections of it, in defiance of the 
public hatred to it, and in defiance of the proved loss of millions to the nation through the infi¬ 
delity of sub-treasurers: a project enforced by precedents raked up, under presidential dictation, 
among despotic Governments or starving communities; by presidential lectures to the State Le¬ 
gislatures of his own free and heretofore prosperous country, denouncing their opposite policy ; 
and by presidential charges of bribery against one of them: 

The retention in office of proved defaulters, and, in some cases, confessedly on account of the 
political influence of themselves, their relations, or friends : 

The dispensation of Executive patronage on the principle that the public offices are the prop¬ 
erty of a party ; that “to the victors belong the spoils of the enemy;” that every citizen is an en¬ 
emy of the country who is not a vassal of the President; and that the true object of Government 
is “to go for the greatest share of the spoils to the greatest number of the spoilers 

The exercise, by the President, in derogation and even in contempt of the co ordinate authority 
of the Senate, of the appointing power, which was conferred by the Constitution on the Presi¬ 
dent and Senate jointly; the abuse of that power, and of the removing power, which was con¬ 
ferred, not by the Constitution, but by Congress, on the President solely, in “rewarding his 
friends and punishing his enemies;” thus introducing a remorseless Proscription, which the fathers 
of the Constitution had declared in advance to be ground of impeachment; and enforcing that 


* < 


GIFT 

8SAAGARET W. CUSHING 
JAN. 26, 1933 


3 


Proscription by an army of spies and informers ; and in the further abuse of the removing power, 
committed in order to gain possession of the public money, in dismissing the officer to whose 
charge it had been entrusted by the people : 

The interference of federal officers in elections—a party service, the performance of which has 
been offered and accepted as a valid excuse for neglecting official duty; and has been secured in 
the principal city of the Union by a tax on the salaries of officeholders, collected under the pen¬ 
alty of dismissal, and expended in electioneering for the President; the defence, on principle, in 
the Senate of the United States, by partisans of the administration, of the interference of federal 
officers in elections, after such practices, before sturdily denied, had been proved by sworn wit¬ 
nesses ; the now received doctrine that every public officer holds his place by the tenure, express 
or implied, of electioneering for the President; and the sanction which the President has lent to. 
that doctrine by the force of his own example in abandoning the public business, and, on one 
occasion, for four consecutive months, to electioneer for himself: 

The doctrine and practice of the Executive to violate the Constitution and law's at pleasure, on 
the assumption that he is bound to obey the Constitution only as he chooses to understand it, 
and to obey the laws only as he chooses to expound them; to defeat the will of the people, ex¬ 
pressed through their constitutional representatives, on the pretence that he is their “ direct rep¬ 
resentative to prevent legislation by using arbitrarily, and as an ordinary executive instrument, 
the veto power, which had been created for extraordinary cases, and by withholding legislative 
bills; to forestall legislation by menacing Congress, in advance, with the veto; to pervert legis¬ 
lation by a mongrel species of veto, approving some parts and disapproving other parts of the 
same bill; to originate legislation ; to strangle Congressional investigations of public abuses; to 
unsettle decisions of the people, made through their appropriate organs on questions of constitu¬ 
tional construction and other subjects; to bring the Judiciary into public odium and contempt by 
the employment of a member of the cabinet to write down in the newspapers a solemn judgment 
of the Supreme Court; by sanctioning acts and declarations of high officers, claiming for the Ex¬ 
ecutive the despotic power of dispensing with the laws, and threatening the judges, should they 
have the temerity to enforce, against his will, a law of the land, to strike the process of their 
officer dead in his hands :—Each of the foregoing powers being utterly repugnant to our free in¬ 
stitutions, and the aggregate, even to the genius of a limited monarchy : 

The purpose of the Executive to array one portion of the community in hostility to another, 
by official invocations of an agrarian and anarchical spirit—a spirit shown by the experience of 
other countries and of all ages to be not more perilous in the outset to the rights of property, than, 
in its progress destructive of personal liberty : 

The tendency of the foregoing and other principles and practices, making up the present ad¬ 
ministrative system, to concentrate in the person of the President all the powers which the Con¬ 
stitution has distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary Departments, and 
thus, in substance, to revolutionize the Government into an elective monarchy, “ surrounded’* 
in form only “by republican institutions 

The tendency of that system, by enlisting on the side of power the most sordid impulses ; 
by its substitution of factious interests for the general good, and by its hollow and fraudulent 
pretences, to sap the foundations of private virtue and public honor—a tendency exemplified in 
its gigantic progeny of peculations ; in the shameless apostasies of public men; in the sale al¬ 
most in open market of political influence; and but lately in the deception practised by a Cabin¬ 
et Minister on the carriers of the mail, by smuggling it through the country under a false name— 
a trick which has been, of course, officially defended on principle, and of which the contriver i» 
not the less honored and trusted by the President: 

The disastrous effects of the present system in deranging the currency, palsying the enter¬ 
prise, withering the industry, and wasting the resources of the country : 

The mutilation, in the Senate, of a record which the Constitution and their oath of office hatL 
solemnly commanded its members to preserve : 

And, lastly, that crowning deed of party madness—the ejection by one portion of the members 
returned to the House of Representatives of another portion of the members so returned; and 
the exclusion, consequent thereon, of a sovereign State of the American confederacy from her 
constitutional representation in that House. 

5. Resolved , That, in the opinion of this meeting, the American people are called on by the 
highest and the holiest considerations which can animate human action ; by respect for the me¬ 
mory of their fathers, in whose blood their liberties were planted; by loyalty to the constitution 
of their country ; by zeal for her honor and regard for her best interests ; by gratitude to a kind 
Providence, whose favor has made them a great and happy nation; to unite in rescuing her now 
and forever from the hands of the spoilers ; in annihilating that stupendous scheme of imposture 
called “ reform,” but meaning public robbery ; and in producing that real “ reform” on which 
rest the hopes of this, the last republic—a reform which can be effected only by removing the 
false reformers from power so long and so direfully abused. 

6. Resolved , That in the nominations recently made by the Whig convention at Harrisburg* 
for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States, and in the enthusiastic re- 


4 


sponse which the friends of liberty have made to those nominations, we see every guaranty of 
that concert of action among the opponents of the Administration which will ensure their tri¬ 
umphant success. 

7. Resolved, That in General William Henry Harrison, the candidate for the Presidency, 
we recognise a patriot whose services in the field have won the lasting gratitude of his country, 
and the applause of Legislatures, Presidents, and the most competent judges of the military art; 
who, though his career in arms was long, perilous, and eventful, “never,” we learn from a dis¬ 
tinguished political opponent, “sustained a defeat;” whose civil services, administrative, legis¬ 
lative, and diplomatic, have proved bis fitness for the highest office in the gift of the people;. 
who has filled situations surrounded with opportunities by which a man in the smallest degree 
less virtuous would have acquired wealth, and yet in honorable poverty left them all; and whose 
purity of heart and plainness of manners peculiarly adapt him to the Chief Magistracy of a re¬ 
public. 

8. Resolved, That we hail with equal gratification the selection of John Tyler as the candi¬ 
date for the Vice Presidency; a favorite son of Virginia, whom that antient Commonwealth has- 
delighted to honor; and who, by the distinguished ability with which he administered her Gov¬ 
ernment, represented her sovereignty in the Senate of the Union, and discharged numerous 
other trusts, as well by his spotless and high-minded integrity, has shown himself worthy of the 
exalted station for which he has been named. 

9. Resolved, That the great party in opposition to the present administration, by the prompti¬ 
tude and manfulness with which portions of them have surrendered cherished preferences for in¬ 
dividuals, have demonstrated that principles not men—the good of the country and not personal 
interests—are their objects; and have thereby acquired an additional title to public confidence. 

10. Resolved, That the harmony now prevailing among the opponents of the administration 
is, in the opinion of this meeting, mainly attributable to one of the eminent citizens whose 
claims were before the Harrisburg convention ; that, by at once and cordially taking grounds in 
support of the nominations, he has added new glory to the name of Henry Clay; a name as¬ 
sociated in every mind with all that is mighty in genius, or devoted in patriotism; a name shin¬ 
ing on every page of his country’s history for more than thirty years; a name identified in every 
land with the cause of human freedom. 

11. Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting the former supporters of the Administration, 
who have withdrawn their confidence from men whose measures their judgments had ceased to 
approve, deserve the title which they have won of “ Conservatives” of the constitution and laws 
of the republic ; that it'is the duty of the original opponents of the Administration to extend to 
the Conservatives the right hand of fellowship; and that a reform in the public councils can be 
effected only by the zealous and hearty co-operation of all who desire a result so vital to public 
liberty. 

12. Resolved, That, in order to aid our political friends in the several States in giving effect 
to the Harrisburg nominations, a standing committee, consisting of seventy-six citizens of the 
District of Columbia, be appointed, with authority to act by a majority, to fill any vacancies 
which may occur in their body, to make such rules for their organization and action as they may 
deem necessary, to select from their number an executive committee, by which shall be per¬ 
formed such duties as may be entrusted to them by the standing committee, and to adopt such 
other measures as in their judgment will best promote the objects of this meeting : and that said 
standing committee be entitled “THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE OF SEVENTY-SIN.” 

After reading the report of the committee, Mr. Fendall, in a speech of con¬ 
siderable length, addressed the meeting in support of the resolutions, and moved 
their adoption. Mr. Richard S. Coxe seconded the motion, and also addressed, 
the meeting. 

Gen. Walter Jones, Wm. L. Brent, and Joseph H. Bradley, Esqrs., after 
reiterated calls, successively addressed the meeting. 

The question was then taken on the resolutions reported by the committee, and 
they were unanimously adopted. 

Mr. Fendall offered the following resolution, which was carried: 

Resolved, That the words “any twenty of whom shall have authority to act,” &c. be sub¬ 
stituted for the words “ with authority to act by a majority,” in the 12th resolution. 

Mr. Jacob Gideon, Jr. then offered the following resolution, which was unani¬ 
mously adopted : 

Resolved, That General Walter Jones be chairman of the standing committee; that the 
president of this meeting be a member thereof; and that it be the duty of the president and vice 
presidents to appoint the remaining members of such committee, and to announce the names of 
the persons composing it, in the publication of the proceedings of this meeting. 


5 


On motion of Mr. George Sweeny, it was unanimously 

Resolved, That the young men of the District of Columbia opposed to the present Administra- 
tration be requested to organize themselves, and appoint a standing committee to co-operate with 
the standing committee appointed by this meeting, in aiding their political friends throughout 
the Union, by the dissemination of useful information, in their efforts to promote the election of 
William Henry Harrison as President, and John Tyler as Vice President of the United 
States ; and that they be requested to depute one or more delegates from their body to the na¬ 
tional convention of young men, to be held in the city of Baltimore in May next. 

On motion of Mr. Sweeny, it was unanimously 

Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting are hereby tendered to the select committee ap¬ 
pointed on the 15th instant, for the able, forcible, and truly eloquent resolutions, framed and re¬ 
ported by them to, and adopted by, this meeting; and, also, to the several gentlemen who have 
addressed this meeting ; and that those gentlemen be requested to write out, as nearly as they 
can, the substance of their very eloquent speeches for publication in the Whig and Conservative 
newspapers of the District. 

On motion of Mr. Lewis Carbery, of Georgetown : 

Resolved, unanimously. That the thanks of this meeting are hereby tendered to the president 
vice presidents, and secretaries, for the appropriate manner in which they have discharged the 
duties imposed on them. 

On motion of Mr. A. B. Claxton : 

Resolved , That the proceedings of this meeting be signed by the President, Vice Presidents, 
and Secretaries, and published in all the Whig and Conservative newspapers of this District. 

Mr. J. H. Bradley then rose and said, that in the course of his previous remarks he had 
intimated an intention, before the meeting adjourned, to offer a resolution, which, although, 
it did not, perhaps, immediately belong to the occasion, was, in some respects, germain to it. 
Among the efforts which had been made by the Administration party to defeat the election of’ 
General Harrison, nothing had filled him with more surprise than the vain and futile attempt 
to identify the opponents of the Administration with the abolitionists, and especially to number 
General Harrison with them ; and he proceeded to show the absurdity of such a charge. In¬ 
dependent of all political considerations connected with the policy of the General Government, he 
deemed this a fit opportunity to bring before the people of the District—emphatically the people 
of the District—a question of most momentous interest. 

The exclusive legislation over this District, had, by the Constitution and the acts of cession, 
been vested in Congress. But he protested against the assumption that exclusive meant absolute 
legislation. He contended that the Constitution had limited, in some respects, the extent of this 
legislation, and that there were certain great, inalienable rights, paramount to the Constitution it¬ 
self, inherent in the people, among which was the right of property ; that at the time of the adop¬ 
tion of the Constitution the territory now embraced within the District of Columbia was a slave- 
holding territory; that the existence of slavery in it was recognised in the Constitution, and the 
right to hold slaves was guarantied to its inhabitants by that instrument; that this right was in no¬ 
wise diminished or impaired by the acts of cession by which its inhabitants were placed under the 
exclusive legislation of Congress; that exclusive legislation meant only to conclude the inter¬ 
ference of any other body politic, and was never designed to confer a power paramount to the 
Constitution, under which alone it existed. 

But he would not go into a discussion of this subject—it was neither the time nor place for 
such discussion ; he had sought such an opportunity as this when thousands of his fellow-citi¬ 
zens were assembled to declare his own opinions on this subject, and to ascertain their will. 
That already the domestic peace of families and the good order of society had been disturbed 
and deranged by the excitements to which this subject had given rise; that strangers to our 
name, strangers to our institutions, strangers to our country and our capabilities and our rights, 
had, year after year, assailed and arraigned those rights, and it was time for us to speak out; 
that the voice of three thousand of the people of this District must have some effect in re¬ 
straining the endeavors of those people, and teaching them that they were pursuing a wrong 
course; that he would not question the sincere and honest convictions of those who were besieging 
Congress on this subject, but their sympathies were wasted on a subject which could not be 
touched through their prayers, and they were producing many of the worst evil3 which they, 
•sought to avert. 

Mr. Bradley then offered the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted : 

Resolved, That by the acts of cession of Virginia and Maryland the tenure of property within 
this District was not impaired, and that all its muniments received additional strength and pro¬ 
tection from the Constitution of the United States ; that Congress has no right, under that Con¬ 
stitution, to diminish any of the safe-guards by which this tenure is surrounded ; that under that. 
Constitution slavery is recognised in the territory composing the District of Columbia, and 


6 


Congress cannot interfere with its existence without the assent of the citizens; and that we look 
upon the efforts of the abolitionists to obtain the action of Congress on that subject, as a direct, 
■violent, and unwarrantable attack on our rights, and, as such, do most solemnly protest 
against them. 

The meeting then adjourned at about 10^ o’clock. 

R. C. WEIGHTMAN, President. 
Raphael Semmes, 

W. A. Bradley, 

Wm. L. Brent, y Vice Presidents. 

Jacob A. Bender, 

Benj. Ogle Tayloe, J 


William Hayman, 

- Richard Wallach, 


\ 


Secretaries. 


The following is the committee appointed under the 12th resoluion: 
REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE OF SEVENTY-SIX. 


1. W alter Jones, Chairman , 

2. Thomas Allen, 

3. Jacob A. Bender, 

4. Chas. W. Boteler, 

5. Joseph H. Bradley, 

6. Wm. A. Bradley, 

7. Wm. L. Brent, 

8. Henry J. Brent, 

9. Joseph Bryan, 

10. Benj. Burns, 

11. RichardS. Coxe, 

12. George Crandell, 

13. Harvey Crittenden, 


39. Henry Addison, 

40. Philip T. Berry, 

41. Robert J. Brent, 

42. Lewis Carbery, 

43. John Carter, 

44. Charles E. Eckell, 

45. Wm. Hayman, 


58. Harrison Bradley, 

59. Henry Daiogerfield, 
€0. Benj. T. Fendall, 

61. Benj. Hallowell, 

62. James Irwin, 

63. Samuel Isaacs, 

64. Benj. Kinsey, 


WASHINGTON. 

14. Richard Cutts, 

15. Willard Drake, 

16. Wm. Easby. 

17. P. R. Fendall, 

18. Stephen P. Franklin, 

19. Jacob Gideon, jr. 

20. David A. Hall, 

21. Joseph Harbaugh, 

22. Josh. L. Ilenshaw, 

23. Seth Hyatt, 

24. Dr. Win. Jones, 

25. James Marshall, 

26. Alex. McWilliams, 

GEORGETOWN. 

46. Wm. Jewell, 

47. O. M. Linthicum, 

48. Samuel McKenney, 

49. John Myers, 

50. Wm. S. Nicholls, 

51. Raphael Semmes, 

52. Bennett Sewell, 

ALEXANDRIA. 

65. Cassius F. Lee, 

66. John Lloyd, 

67. John W. Massie, 

68. Samuel Messersmith, 

69. Robert H. Miller, 

70. John Roberts, 

71. Thomas Semmes, 


27. John Purdy, 

28. John G. Robinson, 

29. Wm. W. Seaton, 

30. Samuel Harrison Smith, 

31. Thomas Stanley, 

32. George Sweeny, 

33. Benj. Ogle Tayloe, 

34. Thomas L. Thruston, 

35. George Watterston, 

36. John F. Webb, 

37. Wm. Wilson, 

38. R. C. Weightman. 


53. John L. Smith, 

54. Walter Smith, 

55. Dr. Wm. Sothoron, 

56. Dr. P. Warfield, 

57. John Wilson. 


72. Stephen Shinn, 

73. Hugh C. Smith, 

74. Edgar Snowden, 

75. Robert I. Taylor, 

76. John Withers. 


At a meeting of the Republican Committee of Seventy-six, held in the city 
of Washington, February 25, 1840, David A. Hall was elected Secretary, and 
William A. Bradley, Treasurer. 

The following gentlemen were elected the Executive Committee for the trans¬ 
action of business, viz: 

For Washington —Philip R. Fendall, Richard S. Coxe, George Sweeny,, 
Jacob Gideon, Jr., David A. Hall. 

jFor Georgetown —Dr. Peregrine Warfield, 
j For Alexandria —Robert 11. Miller. 



7 


SPEECH OF Mr. FENDALL, 

At a meeting of the Opponents of the Administration, held in the city of Washington , on 

Tuesday evening, February 18, 1840. 

Mr. FENDALL, from the committee appointed to draft resolutions, having reported the reso¬ 
lutions which were afterwards published in the National Intelligencer of February 21, addressed 
the meeting, in substance, as follows : 

Mr. President and Fellow-citizens: Tfiic resolutions which, by direction of the commit¬ 
tee, I have had the honor to report to you, are so full, that any remarks for the purpose of ex¬ 
position only, would, perhaps, be unnecessary. But we have met not merely to agree on prin¬ 
ciples; we have met also to warm our hearts, and to give energy to our action in support of our 
principles. I crave, then, the indulgence of this vast and respectable assembly, while I notice a 
few of the topics embraced in that report. 

1 he introductory resolutions “ define the position,” constitutional and historical, of the citizens 
of the District of Columbia in the field of national politics. That it is the right and the duty of 
any and every portion ot the American people to take part in public affairs, is a general propo¬ 
sition too obvious for either illustration or denial. It was asserted as being peculiarly applicable 
to the seat of the Federal Government, in those celebrated papers in defence of our constitution, 
composed by General Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay, which are now regarded by the 
whole country as an authority inferior to only the constitution itself. “It ought,” says the 
Federalist, No. 84, “ also to be remembered that the citizens who inhabit the country at and 
near the seat of Government will, in all questions that affect the general liberty and prosperity, 
have the same interest with those who are at a distance; and that they will stand ready tosound 
the alarm when necessary, and to point out the actors in any pernicious project." Obedient 
to this high injunction, we sounded the alarm nearly nine years ago. We are here together 
now to sound it again. 

The constitutional sanction just cited, though a decisive, is not the sole authority for the pro¬ 
posed action of this meeting. We have other authority, of a widely different character indeed, 
but not, therefore, the less suited to our circumstances. We have anti-constitutional, as well as 
constitutional authority. We have the authority of the present Administration. You remem¬ 
ber, fellow-citizens, that the inauguration of President Van Buren was greeted in this city by an 
official festival. Among the intended guests was the honorable Levi Woodbury, Secretary of 
the Treasury; but circumstances preventing his presence, he transmitted to the company a “sen¬ 
timent,” which was afterwards published in the official journal of the Government—the same 
paper which publishes the laws of the United States. This “ sentiment” was as follows: 

“ The Democracy of Washington city”—[and the Democracy of Washington city is here, in 
“ this hall,'] the immediate sentinels over the administration of the General Government. 
“ Though destitute of political power, they are able, beyond all others, by their intellectual and 
“ moral power, to exert the most salutary influence on the whole Onion." 

Disclaiming, on your behalf, so much of the complimental part of this opinion as modesty 
might forbid you to appropriate, I agree with its author, that your opportunities are particularly 
good for observing the conduct of the Executive. The result of your observations—what the 
“ sentinels” have spied out—appears, should you approve it, in the report just read. The 
“ sentinels” have not slept: a good share of their vigilance has been bestowed on the sentiment¬ 
al Secretary himself: and their report may possibly, as he observes, “exert the most salutary 
influence on the whole Union.” 

From a distinguished confederate of the Secretary, we derive further authority, of the samo 
description, for seeking to exert the influence just referred to. In a document, originating a 
claim on behalf of federal officers, and defending the claim on principles of democracy and good 
morals, to bring “ the patronage of the Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of 
elections,” a Senator of the United States announced that “ a very great majority” of one class 
of persons residing in this District were opponents of the present Administration. The aver¬ 
ment, whether correct or not in regard to the designated class, would be true, beyond contro¬ 
versy, if applied to the classes taken in the aggregrate. An immense majority of the people of 
the District of Columbia are opponents of the present Administration. They see it too closely 
to be otherwise. Now, the right of a majority, whatever may be their political weakness, to pro¬ 
claim their opinions on any subject, has never been denied, in this country at least, even in the 
most angry times. It has not been denied either by the old Federal party, or by the new 
Democratic party. And this the honorable Senator may be presumed to know, he having been 
deep in the councils of both those parties. • 1 

Until the era of misnamed “ reform ” approached, the people of this District did not feel them¬ 
selves called on to express their collective opinions on public affairs. They had differed widely 
and warmly among themselves on the questions which divided their fellow-citizens “ at a distance 
from the seat of Government;” they had seen political power pass from one great party into the 
hands of another; some of them approved, others regretted, all acquiesced in the change. The 


s 


struggle of these parties was felt to be a struggle for principle; and no grave distrust existed as 
to the patriotism of either of them, however acrimonious might be the tone, occasionally, of party 
language. But at length an existing Administration was assailed, on grounds so personal and 
factious in their character, as to give warning of the publicevils which must follow from its defeat. 
In 1828 the citizens of the national metropolis—not the office-holders—met, and gave their tes¬ 
timony, as eye witnesses, in behalf of that Administration. This was a preparatory note of 
“alarm.” It was unheeded. A new administrative system—a system of terror and corruption, 
was fastened on the country. In 1831 you met^again; sounded a new “ alarm,” and “pointed 
out the actors” in the “ pernicious projects” which, you caw, threatened ruin to the constitution, 
the liberties, and the morals of the country. You saw that the peril was fearfully increased by 
the popularity of the chief “actor;” a popularity which was the overflow of national gratitude 
to eminent services in the field. Of this popularity his partisans boasted, that it was “able to 
stand any thing.” If blind idolaters or venal eulogists could be believed, the American people 
were ready to admit that the heroes, the patriots, and the sages of all time, even Washington 
himself, were but as dust in the balance when weighed against Jackson— Andrew Jackson ; him 

“ Who veil’d 

Earth with his haughty shadow, and displayed, 

Until the o’er canopied horizon fail’d, 

His rushing wings ; oh! he who was almighty hail’d!” 

The report declares that President Jackson’s system has been “ adopted, acted on, and extend¬ 
ed,” by his successor. While a favored subordinate of his “ venerated chief,” Mr. Van Buren, 
proclaimed across the Atlantic, that “ to have served under such a chief, at such a time, and to 
have won his confidence and esteem, [was] a sufficient glory.” In a remarkable paper accepting 
the nomination of himself to the Presidency, which the “chief” had made, and the “republican 
delegates,” as they then styled themselves, had confirmed, he said: 

“I consider myself the honored instrument, selected by the friends of the present Adminis¬ 
tration, to carry out its principles and policy ; and that, as well from inclination as from 
“ duty , I shall, if honored with the choice of the American people, endeavor to tread generally 
“ in the footsteps of President Jackson—happy if I shall be able to perfect the work which he 
“ has so gloriously begun .” 

Thus deeply pledged, having, by the unstinted aid of Executive patronage, effected his elec¬ 
tion, he intimated, in his inaugural address as President of the United States, a hope that, by 
enforcing the system, he might acquire the popularity of his “ illustrious predecessor.” Faith¬ 
ful has he been to his pledges; and strictly has he enforced that system. He has even “improv¬ 
ed” it; but on the same principles which he had before applied to improving the newspaper 
press. In his “ endeavors to tread generally in the footsteps,” &c. he has trod and trampled 
under foot public liberty. Again, therefore, is it necessary for the watchmen on the tower “to 
sound the alarm.” 

Among the means for executing “ pernicious projects,” we have not now to fear the overgrown . 
popularity of the principal “ actor.” Mr. Van Buren’s populahity ! What and where is it? 

It is not military, surely, though he is technically a “ commander-in-chief;” though he has just 
boasted to Congress that he reviewed the troops at Trenton ; and though, on the strength of that 
achievement, he asks to be put at the head of a standing army of two hundred thousand men. 

It is not political; for with what single, prominent, salutary measure of public policy, long as 
he has been in public life, is he identified? With none. It is not personal; for his habits, 
manners, and whole appearance act like the torpedo’s touch on popular sympathy. Though 
“ all things to all men,” (in a very different sense, however, from the original meaning of the 
phrase,) he is, so far as the hearts of his countrymen are concerned, nothing to any man. From 
his cold, callous, and artificial demeanor, a plain republican instinctively resiles. And then, 
that smile , that fatal smile ! that sort of smile which, in by-gone days, made a celebrated writer 
“ feel an involuntary emotion to guard himself against mischief,” and of which the same writer 
said, “the insidious smile upon the cheek would warn him of the canker at the heart.” 

No, fellow-citizens, though his practices in the black art, or his art of black practices, have 
gained for the “ honored instrument ” the title of “ magician,” there is no magic in the name of 
Martin kaw Buren. He has no popularity of any kind; and it is not in the nature of things 
that he ever should have any with a people like the Americans, at once frank and sagacious, 
generous and shrewd. But is he on this account the less formidable? Far otherwise. ° He is 
the subtle Octavius, cementing, consolidating, and stealthily enlarging the power which the 
bolder spirit of the first Gsesar had usurped. Conscious weakness teaches him a dangerous pru¬ 
dence. It admonishes him to rely mainly on the resources of his native cunning; and all history 
tells us that cunning is more dangerous than force. Never was the despotism of the Roman 
emperors sterner or more degrading than when wielded by the timid eunuchs of the palace. 

With your permission, fellow-citizens, I will now take up the report of the committee, and 
notice, with more particularity than could be allowed in that paper, consistently with its plan, 
some of the causes of “ alarm” which it refers to. The first is the inordinate increase of the 


9 


Public Expenditures. 

The following is a statement of the expenses of the Government, omitting fractions anil pay¬ 
ments on account of the Ghent treaty and of the national debt, for each of the last fifteen years : 


1825 - 
182G - 
1827 - 
182S - 


$11,490,459 
13,062,316 
12,653,095 
13,296,041 


Mr. Adams’s administration - 
Average for each year, $12,575,477. 

1829 - - - 

1830 - 

1831 - 

1832 - 

1833 - 

1834 - 

1835 - 

1836 - 


$50,501,911 

$12,660,460 

13,229,533 

13,864,067 

16,516,388 

22,713,756 

18,425,417 

17,514,950 

30,868,164 


Gen. Jackson’s administration 


Average for each year, $18,224,092. 

1837 - 

1838 - 

1839 - 


$145,792,735 

$39,164,745 

40,427,218 

31,815,000 


Mr. Van Buren’s first three years - $111,406,953 

Average for each year, $37,135,651. 

You all remember that, in the war of the Reformers against President Adams, one of their 
grounds of attack was the imputed extravagance of his Administration; and most of you know 
that the imputation was unjust. The statement now read shows that, under the cheers of “re¬ 
trenchment and reform,” the public expenses from 1831 to 1838 bounded with greyhound leaps, 
till, for the last named year, they reached the amazing sum of forty millions, and largely up¬ 
wards, of dollars ! an amount greatly exceeding that for any three years of Mr. Adams. 

In 1839 no appropriations were made for the Cumberland road, nor for harbors; which ex¬ 
plains the diminution for that year. What is to become of the present year we know not yet; 
the “ information of the state of the Union,” which the President has given “from time to 
time” during the present session of Congress, being, as it regards the finances, a puzzle. In 
his annual message, transmitted to Congress December 24, 1839, he says that if the payments 
due to the Treasury from banks “ during the next year shall be punctually made, and if Con- 
‘ gross shall keep the appropriations within the estimates, there is every reason to believe that 

* all the outstanding Treasury notes can be redeemed, and the ordinary expenses defrayed, 

* without imposing on the People any additional burden, either of loans or of increased taxes.” 
He then deprecates a public debt, “ new loans f &c. It would seem, however, that instead 
of there being “every reason,” there was no reason, for the President’s credulity; for, on the 
4th of February, six weeks after the annual message, he sends to Congress another message, 
asking for “means” to meet “any deficiencies in the revenue, from whatever cause they may 
arise.” In less than a fortnight, (February 17th,) there is a third message, accompanied by a 
report from the Secretary of the Treasuary, and renewing the application. The Secretary’s 
report admits “ the fact that the greatest debts due from the banks were not payable till the last 

* half of the year and when the annual message was transmitted, Congress had appropriated 
no money except for the pay of its members. So that neither of the contingencies had happened 
which that document indicated as the only imaginable source of fiscal deficiency. The “ means” 
solicited were, of course, understood to be a “new loan,” in the shape of an enormous issue of 
Treasury notes. And on this head I would remind you that in 1838, when the Administration 
was borrowing largely in this wav, there were, according to a published statement made up 
from official documents, nearly fifteen millions of dollars of public money unaccounted for in the 
hands of its agents. 

That the expenses of Government must increase with increasing business and population 
in the country, is readily admitted; but it is denied that any legitimate cause has existed for 
their increase at the galloping rate—I had almost said, in the geometrical progression—shown 
in the table which I read. Other and very different causes must explain this result. The re¬ 
port before you tells what they are. 

The next topic of the resolutions, is 

The Sub-Treasury. 


This “pernicious project,” of late called by its advocates an “Independent Treasury,” and, 
in the last annual message, an “ Independent National Treasury,” was, when first proposed in 





10 


Congress, voted down by the whole Administration party. President Jackson, in his annual 
message of December, 1835, urges, “ that, in the regulations which Congres may prescribe re- 
“ specting the custody of the public moneys, it is desirable that as little discretion as may be 
“ deemed consistent with their safe-keeping should be given to the Executive agents.” 

And in his message of December 6, 183G, he says : 

“To retain it [the public money] in the Treasury unemployed in any way is impracticable* 
“ It is, besides, against the genius of our free institutions to loch up in vaults the treasure oj 
“ the nation. To take from 'the people the right of bearing arms, and put their weapons of 
“ defence in the hands of a standing army, would be scarcely more dangerous to their liberties 
“ than to permit the Government to accumulate immense amounts of treasure beyond the sup- 
“ plies necessary to its legitimate wants. &uch a treasure would doubtless be employed at some 
“ time, as it has been in other countries, where opportunity tempted ambition.” 

The project was denounced by the leading official journals as “dangerous to a republic”—as 
“ disorganizing and revolutionary”—as having the effect “to bring the public Treasury much 
“ nearer the actual custody and control of the President than it is now, and expose it to be 
“ plundered by a hundred hands where one cannot now reach it”—as giving rise to “ a pat- 
“ ronage of the most dangerous influence”—and “ as a fruitful source of mischief in making 
“ Government officers the keepers of the cash” “ Place,” said the authority just cited, “ about 
“ them what guards you may, in the shape of commissioners, inspectors, or whatever else, 
“ peculation will be endless. There is no security in it, and it will involve heavy and unne- 
“ cessary expense. The chief and overruling objection, however, is, the endless source of pat- 
“ ronage to which it would give rise. Make the machinery as simple as you may, and open to 
“ view, wherever money is temptation will creep in, and corruption in every form follow at its 
“ heels.” 

Soon, however, as you are aware, “a change came o’er the spirit of the dream,” and a sub- 
Treasury is now, as it has been from the time of Mr. Van Buren’s accession to the Presidency, 
the cardinal measure of Executive policy. In his last annual message he cites in its support 
“ the experience of other nations.” “From the results,” he says, “of inquiries made by the 
“ Secretary of the Treasury, in regard to the practice among them, I am enabled to state that 
“ in twenty-two out of twenty-seven foreign Governments, from which undoubted information 
“ has been obtained, the public moneys are kept in charge of public officers.” And what are 
these “ foreign Governments” whose example the Chief Magistrate of a free people holds up as 
a model for their imitation 1 Let us listen to the voice, almost from the grave, of a patriot who, 
during the last war, stood fast for his country, though by means of the war he lost a princely 
fortune, and was reduced to poverty. Yes, this venerable man, Moses CARLF.TeN, of Maine, 
now earns his daily bread by the labor of his withered hands. Deceived by the Reformers, he 
gave to them his confidence and support. But when he found that their professions were all 
false and hollow, that their schemes, like the fabled fruit, though tempting to the eye became 
bitter ashes in the mouth, he nobly burst the ties of party, and denounced his deceivers. But 
yesterday he published his solemn protest against “ the daring and reckless attempt to force on 
“ the people of this country an office-holders’ bank, under the specious title of an Independ - 
“ ent Treasury.” He adds : “This office-holders’ bank will, indeed, make the Treasury 
“ ‘Independent’ of the people, because it places the Treasury beyond the reach of the people.” 
After reproving, with the fervid eloquence of his earlier days, the “hardihood” of the President 
in quoting the precedents of Governments “grasping the purse-strings of a people groaning 
“under the burdens of their task-masters,” he indignantly exclaims: “If the analogy were 
“ carried out, by the same reasoning, it would follow that, because twenty-two out of twenty- 
“ seven foreign countries have a King, we must have one too.” 

And whither has the President taken us to see precedents for his exclusively metallic, hard- 
money, anti-credit, purse-and-sword system ? To France—the France of Napoleon and the 
Bourbons; to decrepit Spain, and her dependency, the island of Cuba ; to oppressed Italy; to 
sterile Sweden; to Austria and Prussia, two of the “Holy Allies;” even to Turkey in Asia; 
to the very equator; to nooks and crannies hardly discoverable on the map of the world. The 
only two countries on his list whose circumstances resemble our own, are authorities, in many 
essential respects, against him, even in the case as stated by himself: Holland, that land which 
the spirit of liberty and of commerce won from the waters; and England, from whom our lan¬ 
guage, institutions, habits, and manners are derived. England ! Every line of her glorious an¬ 
nals points the linger of scorn at his crude conceptions. Let us now turn to a single page. In 
the year 1789, Edmund Burke introduced into the House of Commons his celebrated plan of 
economical reform, and arranged it into several “ fundamental rules.” One of them was, “that 
“ all subordinate treasuries, as the nurseries of mismanagement, and as naturally 
“ drawing to themselves as much money as they can, keeping it as long as they can, and ac- 
“ counting for it as late as they can, ought to be dissolved.” Had Mr. Burke lived to our day, 
he would have added to this enumeration, “ and running away with it as fast and as far as 
“ they can.” Establishments which that great man labored, sixty years ago, to put down as 


11 


being among the crying nuisances of a monarchy, the Chief Magistrate of a republic is now 
striving, at every hazard, to create, and to force upon his countrvmen. 

The latest defence of this “pernicious project” is, that it will decrease the price of labor. And 
this is the plea by which the self-styled “ Democratic party ” seeks the favor of the working¬ 
man ! He is asked to lend a hand to keep them in power, to steady their tottering seats, be¬ 
cause his wages arc to be lessened, and the gains of the overgrown capitalist, whom but yester¬ 
day they denounced as an imp of Satan, are to be proportionally swelled ! This would un¬ 
doubtedly be the operation of the scheme. But it was never intended to say so “by authority.” 
There was a leak in one of the smaller vessels. But the story, once told, could not be recalled, 
and all that could be done was to make the best of it. And so they set some of the veterans 
among the “enlisted soldiers of the Administration,” as Mr. Senator Buchanan would say, to 
proving that the prices of every thing else would fall with the price of wages, and that, therefore, 
as the laborer, though he would receive less, would pay out less, he would be no worse oft" 
under the sub-Treasury than he is now. Rather an extraordinary argument, by the w r ay, for a 
revolution in the business of the country, that it will make matters no worse than it finds them. 
But even this argument is fallacious. The Government may reduce the price of wages, but 
how can it affect the prices of the articles which are imported from foreign countries, and which 
the laborer must pay for out of his wages, or do without them 1 Of tea and coffee, for example'? 
And do without them he must, if we are to credit “ the experience of other nations,” which has 
so fascinated the President. 

Fellow-citizens, every individual here present is bound by his duty, as an American citizen,, 
to ascertain, if he can, the truth, and the whole truth, about, this sub-Treasury plot. But a 
very considerable portion of you I know to be personally interested in getting a clear view of 
the particular feature of it on which I am now remarking. I take leave to refer such citizens to 
the masterly speech of Senator 1 )avis, published in the National Intelligencer of the 10th of this 
month, and especially to a statement appended to that speech. The statement shows what 
wages the laboring man receives in some of the President’s “ twenty-two foreign Governments.” 
I have it at hand, and regret that we are so pressed for time that I cannot read it to you. 

[The reading of the statement was called for.] 

Well* gentlemen, here it is : 

“ Wages in France. —Calais, common laborers, 7£d. per day, with board and without dwell- 
“ ing ; Boulogne, 5d. per day do. do. ; Nantes, 8d. per day without hoard and without dwell- 
“ ing; Marseilles, 4d. to 7d. per day, with board and without dwelling. The food in some 
“ districts ‘consists of rye bread , soup made of millet, cakes made of Indian corn, now and then 
“some salt provisions and vegetables; rarely, if ever, butcher’s meat.’ In others, ‘ wheaten 
“ bread, soup made with vegetables, and a little grease or lard twice a day, potatoes or other 
“ vegetables, but seldom butcher’s meat.’ ” 

“ Sweden .—The daily wages of a skilled agriculturist are 7d. or 8d; while the unskilled ob- 
“tain no more than 3d. or 4d. and board themselves. Agriculturists in the Southern provinces 
“live upon salt fish and potatoes ; in the Northern provinces, porridge and rye bread form 
“their food.” 

“ Bavaria .—Laborers are paid at the rate of 8d. per day in the country, without board.” 

“ Belgium .—A skilled artisan may earn in summer Is. 2d. to Is. 5d.; in winter, from lOd- 
“to ls.^d. ; unskilled, half as much, without board —live upon rye bread, potatoes, and milk. 
“ Agricultural laborers have less.” 

“ Germany .—Dantzig laborers, 4jd. to 7d. per day, without board; Mecklenburg, 7d. per day 
“do.; Holstein, 7d. per day, without board.” 

“ Netherlands .—South Holland laborers, 3d. to 4d. per day, with board; North Holland, 
“ 20d. per day, without board; Antwerp, 5d. per day, do. ; West Flanders, 96s. to 104s. per 
“year, with board.” 

'‘Italy .—Trieste laborers, 12d. per day, without board; do. 6d. per day, with board; Is- 
“tria, 8d. to lOd. per day, without board; do., 4d, to 5d. per day with board; Lombardy, 4. 
“to 8d. per day, do. ; Genoa, 5d. to 8d. per day, do., without lodgings; Tuscany, 6d. per 
“ day, without either.” 

“ Saxony .—In 1837, a man employed on his own loom, working very diligently from Mon- 
“ day morning to Saturday night, from 5 o'clock in the morning until dusk, and even at 
“ times with a lamp, his wife assisting him in finishing, and taking him the work, could not 
“possibly earn more than 20 groschen [about 60 cents] per week. Nor could one who had 
“ three children, aged 12 years anil upwards, all working at the loom as well as himself, with his 
“ wife, employed doing up the work, earn in the whole more than §1 weekly.” 

Such is the state of things in the President’s sub-Treasury hard-money countries; or, as Jer¬ 
emy Bentham would have called them, no-money, nothing-to-eat, nothing-to-wear, and worked- 
to-death countries ; countries where he who is born a laborer is apt to die one. And the same 
state of things the President desires to force on our own free and happy country, where, under the 
blessed influence of the system we have been used to, the laborer may so improve his faculties as 


0 


12 


to deserve and to receive the highest honors of the Republic. Look at England, where a similar 
system prevails, and see, as you have seen, a coal-digger become the highest judicial officer of 
the nation ! Several striking instances of this sort, among our own countrymen, will readily 
Occur to your minds. 

The people of the United States need no examples from the “experience of other nations” to 
instruct them about sub-Treasuries. There are a few—no, a good many—volumes belonging to 
the political literature of the House of Representatives, which give sufficient information on the 
subject. These volumes are a series of Congressional reports and Executive epistles, containing 
the memoirs of sub-Treasurers, otherwise called Independent Treasurers, otherwise called In¬ 
dependent National Treasurers, otherwise called defaulters. In one of these works—the report 
of the select committee of investigation, made February 27, 1839, on the defalcation of Samuel 
Swartwout, Collector at New York, and others—you will find it proved by sworn witnesses 
that a prominent cause of Swartwout’s defalcation, and of its long concealment , was “ the 
discontinuance of the use of banks as depositories “ of the public moneys, and permitting the 
same to accumulate in the hands of Mr. Swartwout .” While the money was deposited in 
banks, certificates from them accompanied his weekly returns, as vouchers of the transfer, and 
that the money reported to be on hand was so in fact. But the discontinuance of banks re¬ 
moved this check on the Collector. The ultimate default of this sub-Treasurer alone was one 

MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS 
AND SIXTY-NINE CENTS. 

And here fellow-citizens, a passing word concerning banks ; a subject on which almost every 
variety of opinion exists throughout our country, and perhaps in this hall. While some are 
against the banking system altogether, others are in favor of it, with the balance-wheel of a na¬ 
tional bank; others again regard such an institution as the worst part of the system ; and a yet 
larger portion of our fellow-citizens think that the system needs reform, and that, if reformed, it 
would be salutary. But entire unanimity must exist on one point; and that is, that any thing 
which the Administration has said, or can say against banks or the credit system is, as mere au¬ 
thority, not entitled to a moment’s attention. From the time, in 1829, when the Bank of the 
United States declined to remove the President of the branch at Portsmouth, on the Cabinet ac¬ 
cusation of his being “ a particular friend of Mr. Webster,” and thus resisted the first attempt 
to make the institution a tool for subjecting the public money to Executive control; from that 
moment to the present, the course of the Administration about banks has been a series of incon¬ 
sistencies and tergiversations, almost too laughable for grave rebuke, and yet too serious for levi- 
ity. One contradiction has been only the “ premonitory symptom” of another. 

What! shall an Administration which lives on borrowing ; which, but for its promises to pay, 
would be at its last gasp ; whose mortal agony is protracted only by its Treasury notes, those mus¬ 
tard plasters applied to the feet of a dying patient; shall an Administration so circumstanced be 
yelping, whenever it can get breath enough, “ Down with the banks !” “ perish credit!” and 
will grown persons listen to the cry 1 A set of mischievous politicians produce a pressure under 
which the nation groans, and then say “ no honest man ought to regret” it; poor logic, by the 
way, to show why they do not regret it themselves. They stimulate the banks to extend their 
loans, and then exclaim, “Everyman who trades on borrowed capital ought to break;” thus 
adding another to the thousand and one reasons why they ought themselves to be broken. One 
President assures Congress that “experience continues to realize the expectations entertained as 
to the capacity of the State banks to perform the duties of fiscal agents for the Government;” 
and we next hear him howling in the Western forests about “ their base treachery and perfidy.” 
His successor, in his message of September 4, 1S37, to Congress at its special session, (a ses¬ 
sion for which the proclamation issued on the 15th of May, just eleven days after he had refused 
to call it, because he “did not see, at present, sufficient reasons to justify [him] in requiring an 
earlier meeting than that appointed by the constitution,”) urged “the propriety and importance 
of a uniform law concerning bankruptcies of corporations and other bankers.” This recom¬ 
mendation proceeded from a Chief Magistrate who, in the Senate of the United States, had de¬ 
nounced a bankrupt law affecting banks as an invasion of State rights'" —who had said “his 
idea of a bankrupt system was, that it could not be applied to any but individuals or principals, 
and that it was not capable of being made to operate on associations or on the subordinate 
agents either of individuals or corporations.” The “ illustrious predecessor” had almost, in so 
many words, told Congress that his objections to banks were confined to banks for the People ; 
that he was in favor of a Government bank; that had his permission been solicited, they might 
have created such an institution; and that he would even have draughted the bill for it, being a 
doctor of laws. The “ honored instrument,” eager “to carry out” this policy, insisted, in his 
message of December 4, 1838, that he “ should be at liberty” to use banks or not at his dis¬ 
cretion ; in other words, that though banks under legislative control were great evils, yet as Ex- 
excutive machines they w r ere very desirable. 

It was only the other day that, in the State of Pennsylvania, the very liegemen who had been 
'the loudest in the land in encoring the President’s denunciations of banks, became borrowers, in 
4he name of the State, from banks ! And last fall, when this anti-bank President came back to the 


% 


13 


scat of Government, after an electioneering absence for a third of a whole year, and some office¬ 
holders got up a cold pageant to greet his return, you saw him, fellow-citizens, paraded through, 
your streets in the custody of a committee of bank directors. Banks or no banks, it would, per¬ 
haps, be better for the country, if his habitual advisers were personally as respectable andffitel- 
ligent as those gentlemen. But the companionship was an edifying commentary on the recent 
annual messages. 

Purely the position, or rather the multitude of positions, which the Administration occupies 
towards banks, is ridiculous beyond all that farce-writers or caricaturists have hitherto imagined. 
What like it has ever proceeded from the pen of Fielding, or the pencil of Hogarth ? Our 
neighbor, Mr. Robinson, has never yet had such a subject to try his hand on. The Adminis¬ 
tration endeavor to excuse their inconsistencies, when they make a bankish movement by say¬ 
ing—for what will they not say ?—that the unhappy circumstances of the country have been pro¬ 
duced, not by their own vicious policy, but by the banks themselves—that it is the banks that 
have made the Government a borrower and a beggar. I make no answer to this pretence, for it 
deserves none. But let us concede the explanation to be true, as it is not, and what follows? 
W hy, that whatever may have been the origin of the present distresses, the sub-Treasury is not 
the remedy at this time , at any rate. And yet it is pressed as one of instant, immediate neces¬ 
sity ; as a matter of life and death. 

Retention of Defaulters in Office. 

We come now to the passage in the resolutions which states, as a cause of “alarm,” “the 

* retention in office ot proved defaulters, and, in some cases, confessedly on account of the politi- 

* cal influence of themselves, their relations, or friends.” On this head, it will be impossible for 
me to do more than exhibit to you a few cases by way of specimen. 

And, first, I call your attention to the case of Joseph Reckless, Collector at Perth Amboy, 
in New Jersey. This officer wilfully withheld from the United States a credit for tonnage mon¬ 
ey received for a vessel: his excuse was, that he retained it to meet various claims against the 
vessel, for which claims he had, as he pretended, made himself liable. The pretence was falsi¬ 
fied by the proof. He also, in his accounts with the Government, exhibited fraudulent receipts, 
signed by the revenue boatmen, for an amount greatly exceeding that actually paid to them—the 
sum charged being $447, and the amount paid only $145. The falsehood of the receipts was 
admitted, and the apology was, that the Treasury officers had refused to allow certain commis¬ 
sions and expenses which had been improperly charged by the collector, and that he therefore 
included them in the receipts for the wages of the boatmen; and in a letter (January 22, 1835) 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, he admits that “ this mode of keeping the accounts and making 
those charges has continued ever since. He pretended that it was suggested by the deputy col¬ 
lector. The proof was, that the collector insisted, against the remonstrances of the deputy col¬ 
lector, that the accounts should be made out in this fraudulent manner, and commanded the dep¬ 
uty collector, on his allegiance, so to make them out. It was further proved that, on a represen¬ 
tation from the deputy collector, that the office would need $600 for disbursements, the collector 
said that “ he would draw for a good round sum, say $3,000 or $4,000that he actually ap¬ 
plied for and obtained $2,000; that this advance, being made after the expiration of the second 
quarter of a year, could not be entered to the credit of the Government in the accounts for that 
quarter, but stood over to be entered into the accounts for the quarter in which it was received; 
that, when the accounts for the second quarter were received, the collector, overlooking the fact 
that $2,000 had been advanced, authorized the deputy collector to draw for $600, as in settle¬ 
ment of the balance of $535 86, standing in the accounts of the second quarter, as advanced by 
the collector, but which was covered by the prior advance of $2,000 ; and that the deputy collect¬ 
or remonstrated, but unavailingly, against the collector’s drawing for the $600, the authority to 
do so having resulted from an oversight. 

This is the case of Reckless, as proved by James Parker, a congressional partisan of the 
Administration, and other witnesses. A complaint was laid before the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury in 1835; explanations were required from Reckless and given by him; affidavits were taken' 
on both sides, the District Attorney of the United States acting as counsel for Reckless. The 
refusal to account promptly for public money advanced by mistake would, in former days, have 
been deemed good cause for removal. In the instance of Reckless, this is a mere incident, a 
trifle, in comparison with the rest of the case. It is a case in which a high fiscal officer suborns 
an inferior to falsify accounts ; exhibits false and fraudulent accounts ; and is kept in office. 

2. I shall next notice the case of William Linn, Receiver of public money at Vandalia, Il¬ 
linois. This man habitually violated the law of the land and the instructions of the Treasury 
Department, and contumaciously disregarded the admonitions of the Secretary requiring him to 
deposite the public money, to pay it over, and to render his accounts. When was he dismissed? 
you are about to ask. He was not dismissed at all. On the contrary, when his term of ser¬ 
vice expired, he was reappointed. Mr. Secretary Woodbury, in announcing the reappoint¬ 
ment, informs the officer that, should his misconduct be repeated, it would “be reported for the 
action of the Executive.” But Mr. Linn, seeing what the “action of the Executive” had been* 


14 


might well say to the Secretary, “There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats.” He felt none ; 
and continued, as was to have been expected, to act under the second appointment as he had 
acted under the first. At last, the natural result came to pass. He wound up a defaulter. But 
even then he was not dismissed. He was permitted to resign, a peculator in the sum of fifty- 

five THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS AND SIX CENTS. 

3. Wiley P. Harris, Receiver of public money at Columbus, Mississippi. Between the 
6th of March, 1834, and the 31st of August, 1836—an interval of more than two years and 
five months—the Secretary of the Treasury sent to Mr. Harris no fewer than fifteen communi¬ 
cations, some threatening, some coaxing, and many of them apologetic, complaining of his official 
misconduct. He neither made the returns required by law, nor paid over the public moneys; 
and, as Victor M. Garesche, “appointed to examine the land offices,” officially stated to the 
Secretary, he was a notorious sot. “They all consider,” says Garesche, “that his intemper- 
“ ance has been his greatest crime, and that the loss of his money has been caused by that of his 
“ reason; and that, as in algebra, the minus on one side has been made plus on the other.” 
Nevertheless, Mr. John F. H. Claiborne, afterwards a sort of ad interim representative in Con¬ 
gress from Mississippi, in a letter to the President of the United States, protesting against the 
threatened removal of Harris, boasts of “the honor of an intimate acquaintance with him;” 
says “ Poindexter hates Col. Martin with the malignity of a demon ; and nothing would rejoice 
“ him more than the expulsion of Gen. Harris, whom he knows to be one of the main pillars 
“ of the democratic cause, and one of the earliest and most distinguished friends of the Admin- 
“ istration in Mississippi. His family and connexions are extremely influential, and all of 
“ them are co-operating with us in the arduous struggle which we are now making. They 
“ are true democrats ,■ and the hank, nullifying, and White parties would shout ‘victory’ at any 
“ blow aimed at them. We are now in the midst of an electioneering campaign. Gov. Run- 
“ nells, R. Walker, Major B. W. Edwards, and myself, constitute the Democratic Van Buren 
“ ticket. It will he a close contest .” “With high respect, I remain your excellency’s most obe- 
“ dicnt servant.” That the writer of the letter was the “most obedient servant” of his “Ex¬ 
cellency,” there can be no doubt; but it is not easy to imagine that he had a “high respect” 
for his correspondent. The letter could not be without effect on “ the action of the Executive.” 
The topics were too well chosen to fail of influencing the quarter to which they were addressed. 
In this respect, Mr. Claiborne’s letter is not excelled by Mark Antony’s oration over the dead 
body of Csesar. It was decisive. Harris went on treading in his own “footsteps,” until, in the 
summer of 1836, the balance of public money in his hands amounted to $128,884 70. He then, 
on the 31st of August, was not dismissed, but, in a letter to the President, voluntarily proposed 
to resign. In his letter, this confessed defaulter actually nominated his successor! To this he 
naturally apprehended no objection, as the President had undertaken to nominate his own suc¬ 
cessor. “ I will,” says Mr. Harris to the President, “take the liberty of recommending to you 
“for appointment, as my successor, Col. Gordon D. Boyd, of Attala county. You are prob- 
“ ably acquainted with his public character, as he has been for several years a prominent mem- 
“ her of our State Legislature, and has been throughout an ardent supporter of your Adminis - 
“ tration, and an unyielding advocate of the principles of democracy .” But the good of “ de- 
mocray” was not, it seems, Mr. Harris’s only motive for the nomination. He had an eve, too, to 
his own good. “ This request is made in his [Boyd’s] behalf in part on my own account. As he 
“ is my warm personal friend, he will willingly afford me every facility in his power to tract 

out and explain any errors which may have occurred while the office was under my charge.” 

The nomination thus made, and thus enforced, was adopted by the President! Boyd was ap¬ 
pointed. Mr. Harris’s letter led to a “juggle of state” between the President and the Secreta¬ 
ry, which ended in Harris’s resigning. The amount of his defalcation, subsequently re¬ 
ported, was ONE HUNDRED AND NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS 

and eight cents; about twenty thousand dollars less than the amount stated in Mr. Secretary 
Woodbury’s letter of June 6, 1836. 

4. Gordon D. Boyd, Receiver, &c., at Columbus, Mississippi. Yes, Boyd was appointed 
under the nomination, and “to carry out [the] principles and policy” of, his “illustrious prede¬ 
cessor.” And he did so. This “ unyielding advocate of the principles of democracy” neglected 
to make returns, to pay over the public money, and even to give the bond for the performance of 
his duty, which the law required. He soon became a defaulter in upwards of fifty-five thousand 
dollars. Mr. Garesche, who appears to have had “the honor of an intimate acquaintance” with 
Mr. Boyd, and to have been a teacher of moral philosophy to the President, and physician to his 
conscience, as well as an examiner of land offices, informs the Secretary of the Treasury, in a let¬ 
ter dated June 14, 1837, that Boyd “seems really penitent;” and that he has perhaps only been 
“ led away from his duty by the example of his predecessor, and a certain looseness in the code of 
“ morality which here does not move in so limited a circle as it does with us at home mean¬ 
ing himself, of course, and, it may be presumed, Mr. Van Buren and other purists at Washing¬ 
ton. Garesche goes on to say: “ Another receiver would probably follow *in the footsteps' of 
the two. You will not, therefore , be surprised if 1 recommend his being retained, in prefer¬ 
ence to another appointment; for he has his hands full now, and will not be disposed to specu - 


15 


. an y. more ' ^ ie lablc of the fox and the hedge-hog ! The hedge-hog wished to drive 
oil the flies which had settled on the fox’s eyes and years. “No,” said the fox, “ they arc full 
now— it they should leave me, a fresh swarm would take their places”— new receivers would fol¬ 
low in their footsteps —“ and I should not have a drop of blood left in my body.” 

! ruly, this Mr. Garesche is a gentleman whose knowledge is as various as his business • he 
seems the admirable Crichton and Caleb Quotem in a state of fusion; he is "as deep in JEsop’s 
fables as in ethics, mathematics, land laws, and accounts. Garesche thus enforces his annrnents 
for retaining Boyd in office: ° 

“He will have his bond signed by the same sureties, and forwarded in a few days to Wash- 
“ ington; this speaks favorably. He has, moreover, pledged his word that, if "retained, he 
will strictly obey the law, and receive nothing but specie in payment for lands.” 

Mr. Garesche, apparently with great composure, says that he has “ enjoined the closing of 
the land office until the bond is completed and returned. No land has been sold since the 29 th 
ultimo. In Boyd’s schedule of assets, he returns 20,000 acres of land, and his interest in half 
the profits which may be made out of 15,000 acres more. These lands were stated on the floor 
ot Congress to be part of the public domain, which, by virtue of his office, he had transferred to 
himseli, either without paying a single dollar for them, or by paying for them out of the public 
money. Be this as it may, the pecuniary part alone of his defalcation was fifty-five thousand 
nine hundred and sixty-five dollars and fifty Foun cents. Mr. Secretary Woodbury 
is of opinion that Boyd’s course was “frank and honorable.” The principal evidence, in the 
official correspondence, of his frankness is the following ingenuous declaration in his letter of 
July 10, 1837, to the Secretary : “ The truth is, I am in default .” This undoubtedly would, 
in tormer days, have been sufficiently “frank” for the decisive “action of the Executive.” 
“ \ ou will not be surprised” that the Secretary should commend Mr. Boyd for his “honorable” 
conduct; for you have seen that honor moves in a verv limited circle, indeed, among “us at 
horned 

Of these two receivers at Columbus, Mississippi, one, you have been told, was a “ main pil¬ 
lar of the democratic cause,” and a “true democrat;” and the other an “ardent supporter” of 
President Jackson’s “ Administration,” and an “unyielding advocate of the principles of de¬ 
mocracy.” Mr. Garesche, nothing daunted by these precedents, in a letter, dated October 12, 
1837, to Mr. Secretary Woodbury, recommends as a successor to Boyd “ another warm 
friend of the Administration.” The “action of the Executive” on this recommendation is not 
disclosed in the Congressional documents, from which, exclusively, I have taken the foregoing 
facts. But it is probable that the nominee was not appointed ; for he seems to have forgotten to 
secure the support of Mr. Boyd himself. 

Boyd’s case is exuberant in other topics for our instruction ; but I pass on to my final illus¬ 
tration of this branch of the report, the case of 

5. John Spencer, Receiver of public moneys kt. Fort Wayne, Indiana. This officer failed 
to make the returns of the public money required by law ; for two months did not pay over a 
single dollar; for nearly five months retained almost a quarter of a million of dollars ; refused to 
answer letters from the Secretary of the Treasury remonstrating against his neglect; used tho 
public money; and habitually speculated on moneys paid to him for public lands. On this last 
head, Nathaniel West, jr., appointed examiner of the land office at Fort Wayne, states “that 
“ the Government money paid in by one person has been loaned out by the Receiver in exchange 
“ for uncurrent or not land office money, he receiving for his own private use the discount as 
“agreed upon; and the same Government money again is passed into the land office, tube 
“ again used for the like purpose, in pay for the public lands.” 

This was, surely, a very strong case. But, fellow-citizens, “you will not, therefore, be sur¬ 
prised,” as Mr. Garesche would say, to learn that nothing was done with it. It became tho 
duty of Mr. Senator Hendricks, as “one of the main pillars of the democratic cause,” to arrest 
“the action of the Executive,” and he did so. He thus writes to Mr. Secretary Woodbury, 
on behalf of Spencer : 

“ It would, to some extent, produce excitement, if he were removed ; for he has many warm 
“ and influential friends both at Fort Wayne and in Dearborn county, from which he removed 
“ to his present residence. Better let it be.” 

And it ivas let be ! 

In a letter to the Secretary, written a few weeks after, by Mr. Spencer, in excuse for his 
neglect to pay over the public money, he brings forward these same friends in the following 
“ frank” terms: 

“ My Democratic friends think that 1 ought not to leave until after wi hold oyr elec- 
“ tion for President on the 7th of November, which I have conclud'd to await; and shall 
leave on that evening or the next morning, to deposite, with all the funds in hand up to that 
time.” 

Spencer, on the 23d August, 1836, was a defaulter to the amount of five thousand two hund 
red and six dollars and eighty-four cents. He is still in office. 


1G 


These cases, fellow-citizens, of the Receivers Linn, Harris, Botd, and Spencer, are only 
four out of scores of similar defalcations in a single branch of the public service—a few 
“ beauties” of the spoils system. They fully sustain the passage of the report which they relate 
to; they show you the public Treasury plundered not only with impunity but with triumph. 

Let us now pause for a moment to contemplate the contrasted “action of the Executive ’ 
in other dats. Materials for exact comparison do not indeed exist; for such peculations are 
without precedent in our history. But we may derive instruction from the minor examples. 
During the Presidency of Washington, that “truest’ of all “democrats” in any constitutional 
sense of the w ord, bills to the amount of three thousand dollars had been drawn on the collector 
of Tappahannock, and had been returned protested. Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary 
of the Treasury, addressed a communication to the President stating the fact, and added : 

“ This conduct, though I trust proceeding from no ill motive in the collector, is of a nature 
“ so fatal to the punctual collection of the revenue , and at the same time so vitally injurious 
“ to the public credit , that 1 cannot forbear to submit it as my opinion that the public good re- 
“ quires the superseding of the officer.” 

And the officer was superseded. A few months after, the collector at Yorktown “suffered 
“ Treasury drafts to return unpaid, which were drawn upon moneys reported by him to be in 
“ his hands. All the drafts which were at first declined were afterwards paid.” Mr. Hamil¬ 
ton apprized the President of these facts ; transmitted to him the collector’s “letters of apology 
on the subject,” and said : 

“ I perceive nothing substantially to distinguish this case from that of the collector of Tappa- 
“ hannock, who was lately superseded on a similar account. Nor can I forbear, however pain- 
“ ful the task, to submit it as my opinion, in this as in that case, that the good of the public 
“ service requires a displacement of the officer. Punctuality in this respect is too indispensa• 

“ ble not to be made the invariable condition of continuance in office.” 

And the officer was displaced. 

And so, after Mr. Hamilton had retired from the Treasury Department, his successor, Oliver 
W 7 olcott, transmitted to the President documents showing that the collector at Vienna, in 
Maryland, had “neglected his duty in failing to collect, or to institute in season, suits for the 
“ recovery of bonds for duties due to the United States.” The Secretary also stated : 

“ The collector has moreover failed to pay certain drafts, drawn on him by the Treasurer of 
“ the United States, for moneys appearing by returns to the Treasury to be on hand ; and in 
“ this respect he is found to be in the same predicament as the collectors of York and Tappa- 
“ hannock, who were superseded. 

“ The Secretary is firmly of opinion that the good of the public service requires that this 
“ officer should be displaced; and, from inquiries which he has made of Mr. Murray, of the 
“ House of Representatives, he is induced to Relieve that James Frazier is a fit character to suc- 
“ ceed to the office.” 

And this collector was displaced, and Mr. Frazier, because he was a “fit character was ap¬ 
pointed to succeed the removed officer. 

How r slight are these cases, in either their pecuniary or moral aspect, when compared with the 
modem examples which we have just contemplated ! Yet, as the “ public good” forbade tolera¬ 
tion of official misconduct, the Secretaries, Hamilton and Wolcott, recommended, and the Pre¬ 
sident directed, the dismissal of the offenders. And, in such a course, we see the reason why 
similar transgressions were so rare. While the Father of his Country presided over its councils, 
and so long as his example influenced them, no man was appointed to office unless he was a 
“fit character;” and, if an officer misbehaved, no partisan mediator dared to intercede for him 
on the ground that he was a “pillar” of this party or the other; that his removal would “pro¬ 
duce excitement;” that he had “many warm and influential friends;” that “his family and 
connexions” were “extremely influential;” that he was “in the midst of an electioneering 
campaign;” that there would “be a close contest,” and votes might be lost by dismissing 
him; and so “better let it be,” &c. Who would have ventured to urge such defences to 
Alexander Hamilton'? To him “whose bosom would have glowed like a furnace at its own 
whispers o freproach ;” to him of whom, in noticing a calumny affecting his personal honor, his 
great antagonist, Thomas Jefferson, has said, “ Impossible as to Hamilton—he was far above 
that!” So, too, was Oliver Wolcott “far above” the approaches by which peculation sought 
and found pardon, and even favor, from a shivering successor. And when we ascend to Wash¬ 
ington—can any human mind conceive it possible that the language of Claiborne and Harris to 
a President of the United States would have been addressed by any sane man, high or low, 
emperor or beggar, in the whole world, to President Washington?—to George Washington 1 
No, fellow-citizens, you feel and know—I see you do—that the first base word had hardly 
escaped the lips of the tempter before he would have prayed—perhaps the earliest and only payer 
of his life—that the earth might open and ingulf him ! 

The few cases, mere samples of a multitude, which have been cited, exhibit a picture that can 
scarcely be made darker than it is. But a few touches must be added. The present Chief 


17 


Magistrate, when a Senator of the United States, was one of a committee which reported the 
noted bill “ for securing in office faithful collectors and disbursers of the revenue, and displacing 
defaulters.”* He was afterwards a prominent member of an Administration whose practice di¬ 
rectly reversed the doctrines of the bill; which “displaced faithful collectors,” &c. and “secur¬ 
ed in office” defaulters. When he became himself the head of the Government, he “carried 
out” this “policy” by retaining in office Boyd, Spencer, and the like. And yet, it would seem, 
that in theory he was still wedded to the doctrines of his report; for, in his message of Decen her 
4, 1838, he shudders “at the impropriety of diverting public money to private purposes,” and 
even urges on Congress that “the application of public money by an officer of Government to 
private uses should be made a felony, and visited with severe and ignominious punishment.” 
Thus, on his own showing, men whom he kept in offices of high trust and responsibility deserv¬ 
ed to be in the penitentiary. Is it conceivable that a President who feared to displace official 
robbers lest their removal should “produce excitement,” and because they had “warm and in¬ 
fluential friends,” wmuld dare to enforce new penal laws against them 1 No. But, while he 
denounced the offence, and thus got credit, like Joseph Surface, for a fine “sentiment,” he 
hugged the offender. In the Blue Book for September, eighteen hundred and thirty seven, and 
in the Blue Book for September, eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, you will find the name of 
“John Spencer” as receiver of the land office at Fort W T ayne, Indiana. 

This timidity at head-quarters is the necessary result of the principle that 

The Public Offices are the Property of a Party. 

It is a law of the spoils system—a law' founded in the very nature of man—that the subordi¬ 
nate becomes a viceroy over the superior. At an early period of our Government, Comrrcss de¬ 
cided that the President exclusively had the constitutional power of removal ; and, however 
unsparingly it has been exerted in later years, yet on occasions loudly invoking its exercise, it 
has slept, because the executive was without moral strength to punish a powerful delinquent. 

The Constitution declares that “the Executive power shall be vested in a President of the 
United States of America but when factious combinations succeeded in placing this Constitu¬ 
tion in the hands of the spoils party, the Executive power was distributed among the small War¬ 
wicks—the king-makers of the several towns, villages, and neighborhoods of the country. 
These local cabals dictated removals and appointments in their respective districts ; and the 
dictation was obeyed by even that 

“ Fiery etter-cap, that fractious chiel, 

As hot as ginger, and as stiff as steel,” 

the indomitable Jackson. You remember the facts which were brought to light in the first year 
of his Presidency, by a squabble for “ rewards” in a principal city of the Union. Those “ I o.-ton 
disclosures” proved that, in advance of his election, a junta in Boston had apportioned each 
man’s share of the spoils; and that, when elected, he disposed of the federal offices in Boston in 
exact conformity with the plan transmitted to him. You remember, too, the removal of an 
officer at Russell, in Massachusetts, and the appointment of a successor, on a requisition signed 
by persons representing themselves to be the party committee of the village. The successor 
turned out to be a common vagabond, and the signers to be men of straw. But the hoax as¬ 
certained a principle. You remember a thousand other instances in which the President of'ihe- 
United States was a mere clerk for registering the edicts of “pillars of the democratic «ause.” 
But there is one case with which you are perhaps less familiar. When our present generalissimo, 
Mr. Van Buren, had the “ glory” of serving in a civil capacity, that of Secretary <>f State, un¬ 
der his “ venerated chief,” and just after his “ glory” began to bud, he received an ordt r from 
Louisiana for certain removals and appointments. His answer, which is brief, pithy, and some¬ 
what of a curiosity, you will find at page 2793 of the 8th volume of that useful work, Gales & 
Seaton’s Register of Congressional Debates. It bears date April 20, 1829, and is in the follow¬ 
ing words : 

“ My Dear Sir : I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of yours of the 21st ultimo, 
and of informing you that the removals and appointments which you recommended woe made 
on the day your letter was received. 

“ With respect, your friend, &c.” 

“ You will not,” I am sure, “be surprised” at this letter; or, if you are, it will he only at 
the long interval between the date of Mr. Overton’s letter and that of the answer. This, how¬ 
ever, is easily explained. Mr. Van Buren did not take possession of the State Depart pent for 
some time after his appointment; his “democratic friends” thinking that he “ ought n>t to 
leave” New York until after he had drilled some of “our elections.” But the momem ho yet 
his orders he obeyed them. “The removals and appointments which you recommended wen- 
made on the day your letter was received .” 

* See Report on Executive Patronage , May 4, 1826, Senate documents 1st session 1‘JiU 
Congress, vol. 4, No. 88, p. 7. 

Q 



The authority which could command, was of course competent to prevent, removals from of¬ 
fice. It was exercised as boldly, and submitted to as tamely, in the one class of cases as in the 
other. Examine, fellow-citizens, the official correspondence between the peculators, the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury, and the special agents of the Government—the thieves, the arch thief- 
catcher, and his beagles. You will find the peculators and their advocates writing w r ith the 
confidence of men who felt their ground, and knew that it was strong ; “ the truth is, I am in 
default,” and you must admit it is “ frank and honorable” in me to say so ; but I have “many 
warm and influential friends;” my “family and connexions are extremely influentialI am 
“in the midst of an electioneering campaign“ it will be a close contestI am a “distin¬ 
guished friend of the Administration ;” a “true democratand a “ main pillar of the democratic 
causemy removal “would produce excitement;” “better let it be;” and, at any rate, if 
Curtis, Wise, and their “associates” wont “let it be,” if they will insist that the people 
shall not be stripped naked of all their money— not be left without a dollar to go to market 
with—at least give me the option of resigning , and put some “warm personal friend” in my 
place who will figure down the balance against me. But I advise you neither to dismiss me, 
nor to allow me to resign—beware of the consequences!—keep me in office—only give me a 
chance of stealing again, and I “ pledge my word,” nay, my “honor,” that I wont do it. This 
is the tone of the defaulters ; while the Secretary of the Treasury is not merely “ afraid to strike,” 
but crouches before his too powerful vassal, and the Government missionary amuses himself 
with the game going on between the Administration and its “pillars,” and acts, like an auc¬ 
tioneer, as agent for both parties. 

One of the most remarkable features of the report of the last investigating committee, is the 
dictatorial tone of Mr. Hoyt, the present Collector at New York, in his correspondence with 
the Secretary of the Treasury. He attempted the same tone towards the committee, but soon 
found that they were made of “sterner stuff.” 

Your knowledge of human nature will tell you that insubordination is by no means inconsist¬ 
ent with servility. Mr. Bond, in his celebrated speech, delivered in April, 1838, in the House 
of Representatives, mentions a case in which the Attorney General, the legal adviser of the 
Government, had given an opinion; that President Jackson endorsed on the opinion: “Mr. 
Butler has not examined this case with his usual care : let this paper be referred back to him, 
with a copy of the charter, for his reconsideration ;” and that, accordingly, the Attorney Gen¬ 
eral gave a new opinion in conformity with the President’s mandate. Some of you here pres¬ 
ent know more than Mr. Bond of this case; and know something also of another very like it. 
One gentleman is fully and exactly informed on the subject; and he will, I hope, state the facts 
to you before we adjourn. 

The right vested by the “spoils system” in cabals, and even in individuals, to demand the 
public offices as private property, was so well understood that the President’s chancellor, Garesche, 
in his letter of October 12, 1837, calls a warm friend of the Administration, who wanted office, 
not an applicant, but a “ postulant. ” This significant word has been engrafted by the reformers 
on our language, just as new words were coined in France to suit the ever varying atrocities of 
her Revolution. 

Some of the services in which the Executive has recognised a title to this new species of 
property, were of a nature which, in the judgment of mankind, ought to have doomed the 
“postulant” of office to a felon’s cell. You remember that in 1833, one Hocker, sheriff of 
Lincoln county, in Kentucky, fraudulent ly “withheld,” as he called it, the poll-books of that 
county, and thus prevented the retwm of a representative to Congress, whom the people had 
elected against the wishes of Mr. Van Buren’s « venerated chief.” This service was so highly 
valued, that, after a decent delay, Hocker was made a postmaster, the incumbent of the office 
having been displaced to make room for him. Afterwards, in 1837, the chairman of the com¬ 
mittee for inquiring into the condition of the Executive Departments, &c. addressed a letter to 
the Postmaster General requesting for the committee certain papers, among which were “the 
papers and recommendations in favor of the appointment of the present postmaster, Alfred Hock- 
9 er- Mr. Kendall refused to send the papers, remarking: “Injustice to & persecuted fellow - 

* citizen , I deem it proper to add, that Alfred Hocker's private character is believed to be without 

* a blemish, and his qualifications undoubted; and that, to hunt him through life for an error of 
f opinion, in a particular case, as to his legal power, appears to be as unjust as it would be in- 
‘ human.” * Hocker and Kendall “ fellow-citizens !” Yes, truly, they are so. But, just now, 
there is no fellowship in their fortunes. “Citizen” Hocker, after another “decent delay,” 
fell into a second “ error of opinion." Having before determined that he was bound to obey 
the law against stealing only as he understood it, and understanding that it did not apply to 
poll-books, or, if it did, that it was unconstitutional; and being sustained in this construction 
by the “ action of the Executive” appointing him to an office of trust, he went only a single 
step further when he satisfied himself that the law against stealing money was unconstitutional. 
And so he stole money. As the Kentucky authorities, however, “ understood” that this law 

* See Rep. No. 194, H. R. 24th Cong. 2d sess. Journal of Committee, p. 74. 


19 


was constitutional, and binding on every body, and were about to visit ‘‘with severe and ig¬ 
nominious punishment’’ his “errorof opinion ” on the subject, he ran away. And, alas ! citi- 
•zen Hocker is now only an ex-postmaster. But “citizen” Kendall is still a Postmaster Gen- 
i ’ i 1 d / ama ’ m Whlch he is a “ star ” performer, is still acting. The fifth act is yet to be 
played. Before the curtain falls, other than merely poetical justice will doubtless be adminis¬ 
tered to his “ errors of opinion.” 

In the transfer of Executive authority, it was not to be expected that the public press should 
be forgotten. Accordingly we find that, under the spoils system,* editors of newspapers have 
been important constituents of “the power behind the throne, greater than the throne itself.” 
This topic is an endless one, and it is too familiar to justify illustration. But the peculiarity of 
one example deserves notice. It has recently been proved, by a sworn and unimpeachable wit¬ 
ness, that, in a case which the President of the United States had under examination, that high, 
officer thus appealed to the editor of his official journal—his “Moniteur:” We can’t allow 
Gouverneur’s claims—they rest on equitable principles; Blair, can we V* and that the answer 
was, “ Pooh! no, certainly not.” 

Of most of the evils with which the reformers have deluged the country, the proximate cause 
Is the President’s abuse of the 

Appointing and Removing Power. 

To follow out this topic into its details, or to animadvert on the proscription which is its 
prominent feature, would detain you here till daybreak, and it would then be unexhausted. But 
it is important that your attention should be called to the nativity of the abuse. President 
Jackson was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1829. The Senate, a co-ordinate branch of the 
Executive power, after remaining in session till the 16th, on that day informed the President 
that it was “ready to adjourn, if he had no further communication to make.” On the next 
day he assured them that “he had no further communication to make ;” the constitutional im¬ 
port of which assurance was, that he knew of no public business to be acted on, in which the 
Senate had a right to participate. This declaration was made just thirteen days after he had 
solemnly sworn before the Chief Justice of the United States, “I will faithfully execute the of¬ 
fice of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and 
defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Senate adjourned on thd 17th of March. 
On the 20th, three days afterwards, certain removals and appointments were announced in the 
official journal of the Government, which it was publicly known had been determined on w'eeks 
before. And then the work “went bravely on.” Among the “reforms” gazetted on the 28th. 
of April, were the “displacing” of that “faithful collector,” Jonathan Thompson, and the ap¬ 
pointment of Samuel Swartwout as his successor, who w T as “ secured in office” till he had stolen 
(“withheld,” I believe, is the word used by the Jackson and Van Buren classics) the “good 
round sum” of one million two hundred and twenty-five thousand seven hundred 
and five dollars and sixty-nine cents. Mr. Swartwout had formerly been committed to 
prison on a charge of high treason, and, in the opinion of some of the Judges of the Supreme 
•Court, ought to have been tried on it; and he was notorious as an ardent, dashing adventurer. 
But, because he was a partisan and eulogist of the President, and, perhaps, for other personal 
reasons more mysterious, his manifest unfitness for the office was disregarded, and he was ap¬ 
pointed collector at a port where “the customs collected,” as Mr. Secretary Woodbury de¬ 
clares, “ equal nearly two-thirds of the whole amount in all the United States /” 

And so, John Duer, Attorney of the United States for the southern district of New York, a 
lawyer of the highest character, professional and personal, famed as well for his business habits 
ns for his learning, eloquence, and integrity, was “displaced” to make room for a political 
agent of Mr. Van Buren. When the new officer’s voracity had became intolerable, he resign¬ 
ed, and was succeeded by William M. Price. As a lawyer, this man was known chiefly for 
his agility in the old Bailey courts; and it has since been proved, by sworn witnesses, that he 
was utterly without responsibility, in either property or morals. One of them swears, “ I never 
saw the day when T would trust him with two hundred dollars.” But he was a busy partisan* 
and therefore was appointed to an office, in which he has boasted that several millions of dollars 
passed through his hands. Passed through! Not exactly. Sevf.ntt-two thousand one 
hundred and twenty-four dollars are shown by the last Investigating Committee to have 
stuck to his hands; and no man who had turned his attention to the subject doubted that, with, 
more time for scrutiny, the committee would have discovered the peculation to be much larger. 

During the recess of the Senate in 1829, Joseph Holman, receiver of public moneys at Fort 
Wayne, in Indiana, was femoved, for no reason, except his preference of Mr. Adams over Gen¬ 
eral Jackson as a candidate for the Presidency, and Jonathan McCarty was appointed in his 
place. Mr. McCarty resigning, John Spencer was appointed his successor; and you have al¬ 
ready seen the result of this experiment on the removing power. 

The report particularizes an abuse of the appointing and removing power, which, as it escaped 
.punishment, shook our institutions to their very foundation—the dismissal of William J. Duane, 
Secretary of the Treasury, from office, because he refused to remove, at the bidding of the Pre- 


20 


sident, the public money from the place where the law had placed it, and directed it to remain; 
and the appointment of a successor for the avowed purpose of defeating the legislative will. 
Among the more authoritative indications of the shock to the public mind produced by this pro¬ 
ceeding of the President—in “ taking the responsibility,” as he called it, of violating a law of 
the land—was a series of impressive resolutions passed by the Legislature of Virginia—of Vir¬ 
ginia, the mother and the nurse of the Federal Constitution. Two of the resolutions were as 
follows : 

“ Resolved by the General Assembly, That the recent act of the President of the United 
“ States, exerting a control over the public deposites, by causing them to be withheld and with- 
•“ drawn, on his own responsibility, from the United States Bank, in which they had been or- 
“ dered to be placed by the act of Congress chartering the said Dank, is, in the judgment of the 
“ General Assembly, a dangerous and alarming assumption of power by that officer , which 
“ cannot be too strongly condemned. 

“2. Resolved, That while the General Assembly will ever be ready to sustain the President 
“ in the exercise of all such powers as the Constitution has confided to him, they nevertheless 
“ cannot but regard with apprehension and distrust the disposition to extend his official au~ 
“ thority beyond its just and proper limits, which he has so clearly manifested in his recent in - 
“ terference with the Treasusy Department of the Federal Government, in the exercise of a 
« sound discretion which Congress has confided to the head of that Department alone.” 

I need not detain you by enumerating examples of the contempt for the Senate which is so 
striking a feature of the new Administrative system. You remember President Jackson’s espion¬ 
age over that body ; his practice of availing himself of casual absences of Senators to nominate 
favorites for office, whose rejection in a full Senate had been shown, or was expected to be, cer¬ 
tain ; his appointment, during the recess, of persons previously rejected by the Senate; and, in 
other cases of similar contumacy on the part of the Senate, his keeping the office vacant and its 
duties undischarged throughout a new Congressional session. The case of Samuel Gwin must 
be fresh in your memories. This man, a clerk in the Post Office Department, was, in Decem¬ 
ber, 1831, nominated as register of the land office at Mount Salus, in Mississippi, and rejected— 
nearly one-half of the.Senators who voted against him being Administration men. In June fol¬ 
lowing he was renominated, on the strength of recommendatory letters, which, as there was 
powerful circumstantial evidence to show, were prompted by the President himself. The 
Senate, nevertheless, laid the nomination on the table, and informed the President that it was 
not their intention to take it up during the session. On the 16th of July, the President having 
informed them “ that he had no further communication to make,” the Senate adjourned sine die. 
On the 24th of July, the official gazette announced that the President had appointed Samuel 
Gwin to be register of the land office at Mount Salus ! This movement startled the whole nation, 
except one individual—another Gwin, said to be a kinsman of the new register. He thought it 
a capital hit; and at a dinner-party in Mississippi, in the blasphemous exuberance of family grati¬ 
tude, gave the following toast: “ Jackson, as near as can be, a fac simile of the Rock of Ages. 
Those who place their confidence in him cannot fail.” 

A case scarcely less memorable than Gwin’s is exhibited in the history of the mission to Eng¬ 
land. The Senate refused to confirm Mr. Van Buren’s nomination as Minister, because, when 
Secretary of State, he had begged pardon of the King of England for the conduct of his own coun¬ 
try about the colonial trade. The President, from the conjoined motives of personal pique and 
party policy, refused to make a new nomination for years, and then nominated the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, who appointed all the committees of that House, having in his pocket 
the promise of the mission. The doctrine of the relations betw'een the President and the Speak¬ 
er has been semi-officially stated, since Mr. Van Buren’s accession to the Presidency, to be as 
follows: 

“ As the representative of the majority electing him, (the Speaker,) that majority is made re } 
“ sponsible to their immediate constituents, and when that majority sustains an Administration, 
i( the Executive head, and all associated with him, are in some sort held answerable to the na- 

tion for the Speaker’s selection of eminent men of both parties, capable and willing to conduct 
“ the closest and severest scrutiny.” 

We should not dismiss this topic without noticing the settled practice of the Executive to con¬ 
fer offices on unsuccessful candidates for the favor of the people. This abuse of the appointing 
power tempts every man who holds a trust from the people to discharge it subserviently to the 
Executive, by assuring him that, let the worst come to the worst, let the people reject him for 
violating their will, the President will take care of him. * 

The Interference of Federal Officers in Elections 

Is assigned, in the report, as a cause for the “alarm” which you are sounding. Attempts to 
tamper with elections have ever been justly regarded as vital stabs to public liberty. One of the 
heaviest charges in the English Bill ol Rights against James II, was his “violating the freedom 
of election of members to seats in Parliament.” 


21 


^ r - Jefferson ’ before lle was President, expressed his opinion on this subject in the following 

“ One thing I will say, that, as to the future, interferences with elections , whether of the 
“ State or General Governments, by officers of the latter , should be deemed cause “ of removal ■ 
“ because the constitutional remedy by the elective principle becomes nothing, if it maybe 
“ smothered by the enormous patronage of the General Government.” 

Shortly after his election to the Presidency, he manifested his determination to conform his 
practice to his theory, by causing the several heads of departments to issue a circular, which says: 

“The President of the United States has seen, with dissatisfaction, officers of the General 
“ Government taking, on various occasions, active parts in elections of public functionaries, 
“ whether of the General or the State Governments. Freedom of elections being essential to 
“ the mutual independence of Governments, and of the different branches of the same Govern- 
“ merit, so vitally cherished by most of our constitutions, it is deemed improper for officers de- 
“ pending on the Executive of the Union to attempt to control or influence the free exercise of 
“ the elective right. This I am instructed, therefore, to notify to all officers within my Depart- 
“ ment, holding their appointments under the authority of the President directly, and to desire 
“ them to notify to all subordinate to them. The right of any officer to give his vote at elec- 
6 ‘ tions as a qualified citizen, is not meant to be restrained, nor, however, given, shall it have 
“ any effect to his prejudice; but it is expected that he will not attempt to influence the votes of 
“ others, nor take any part in the business of electioneering, that being deemed inconsistent 
“ with the spirit of the Constitution, and his duties to it.” 

President Jackson, who claimed to be a “ second Jefferson,” in his inaugural address, said: 

“ The recent demonstration of public sentiments inscribes on the list of Executive duties, in 
“ characters too legible to be overlooked, the task of reform ; which will require, particularly, the 
“ correction of those abuses that have brought the patronage of the Federal Government into 
“ conflict with the freedom of elections, and the counteraction of those causes which have dis- 
“ turbed the rightful course of appointment, and have placed, or continued, power in unfaithful 
“ or incompetent hands.” 

You all know that this passage is a slander on Mr. Adams, for which, in an analogous case 
between private persons, a jury would have given vindictive damages. But we are not now- 
concerned with this aspect of it. You have already seen whether or not Presidents Jackson and 
Yan Buren have pursued a “ rightful course of appointment,” and you feel into what sort of 
“ hands” they have “placed or continued power.” We have now only to do with the denuncia¬ 
tion of abuses bringing the “ patronage cif the Federal Government into conflict with the freedom 
of elections.” President Jackson’s practice on this subject was in tremendous “conflict” with 
his professions; and President Van Buren has, indeed, been an instrument to carry out [his] 
principles and policy” in regard to it—“to perfect the work which he had so gloriously begun.” 

If any thing were wanting to perfect the title of their “principles and policy” to public abhor¬ 
rence, it would be found in their dedication of the patronage of the Government to electioneering 
purposes. Without venturing on the wide field of the country at large, let us pluck a few 
flowers in the garden—the National Metropolis—our own city. And, first, for the Cabinet “im¬ 
proper.” When Mr. Amos Kendall received the appointment of Fourth Auditor as his share of 
the spoils, he issued a circular discontinuing some newspapers taken at the office, because they 
did not “ assist” him “in settling the accounts of the United States Navy.” In the tone of a 
Cato, he said: 

“ The interest of the country demands that this office shall be filled with men of business, and 
“ not with babbling politicians. Partisan feelings shall notenter here, if I can shut them out. 
“ To others belongs the whole business of electioneering; to me and my clerks other duties are 
“ assigned. Them I shall endeavor to discharge in the spirit of reform, which has made Gen- 
“ eral Jackson President. * Vain’ I may be, proud I am, that the President has given me ant 
“ opportunity to aid hi$ in proving that reform is not an empty sound, and is not to apply 
“ merely to a change of men.” 

Circumstances soon threw suspicion on these patriotic declarations; but the “ hireling,” as ho 
properly calls himself, was not unearthed till 1832. Then we find a letter from this same Mr. 
Kendall to a correspondent in Kentucky, of which the following is an extract: 

“ Dear Sir: I take the liberty to enclose you certain proposals, which speak for themselves. 
“ The people need only correct information, and the proposed paper will give it on the cheapest 
“ terms. It is intended to reach every neighborhood in the Union, and it is particularly de- 
“ sirable that it should be circulated through Kentucky. It will render essential service in all 
“ your elections. Will you take the trouble, for the sake of our good cause, to raise a sub¬ 
scription in your quarter, and make a speedy return of names and money 1 The time for 
“ action is at hand,” 

About the same time, Elijah Haywood, Commissioner of the General Land Office, thus writ 
to a correspondent in Ohio : 


“Sir: I send you the second number of the Extra Globe. It is one dollar for thirty num- - 
** bers. As it is of the greatest importance in the approaching contest for the Presidency 
“ that this paper should be circulated and read in every neighborhood in Ohio, can you procure 
t( five or ten subscribers for it in your vicinity 1 If you can, and do, you may transmit the 
“ money to me, and I will see the papers forwarded to such persons and post offices as you shall 
“ direct. The back numbers will be sent.” 

President Jackson had, the year before, given Mr. Kendall to understand that the sort of “ aid” 
he wanted was not an “ empty sound,” by franking letters himself, of which the object was to 
promote his nomination to the Presidency for a second term—bitterly hostile as he was to bring¬ 
ing “ the patronage of the Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of elections; and 
though his language, in his first message to Congress, was that the Constitution ought to be 
amended so as “to limit the service of the Chief Magistrate to a single term.” The instance men¬ 
tioned in the report shows that President Jackson’s example of electioneering for himself was im¬ 
itated, and that his “ principles and policy,” in this respect, were “ carried out” by his succes¬ 
sor—his Augustulus in the empire. 

President Jackson’s Secretary of War, Mr. Cass, electioneered on a new plan. He became art 
elaborate newspaper assailant of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Worcester’s case—the law, 
as laid down by the court, not suiting the Georgia elections. 

President Van Buren’s Cabinet appears to have been, so far as electioneering is concerned, as 
much of a “unit” as President Jackson’s was. You have seen Mr. Poinsett, the Secretary of 
War, inflamed by a generous rivalry of his predecessor, Mr. Cass, directly attempting, by letters 
missive, to prevent the re-election to Congress of Mr. Legare, who, in performing, with charac¬ 
teristic firmness and ability, his duty to the people, had sinned, beyond forgiveness, against the 
Administration. You recollect Mr. Attorney General Butler’s letter addressed to Mr. Hugh A. 
Garland. The object of this performance was to convince the people of Virginia, that though 
Mr. Van Buren had confessedly electioneered to prevent the re-election of James Madison to 
the Presidency, yet Mr. Van Buren was nevertheless the good friend, admirer, and even support¬ 
er of Mr. Madison ! Mr. Butler was succeeded, as Attorney General, by Mr. Grundy, who 
took up the same subject as among the unfinished business of the office; thinking, perhaps, that 
“ Mr. Butler had not examined the case with his usual care.” Mr. Grundy took more pains 
with it; for he writ an epistle to Mr. A. 0. P. Nicholson, which fills nine columns of the Globe. 
When this document appeared, “ the first idea that struck you,” fellow-citizens, probably was, 
that Mr. Grundy had said in the Senate of the United States, “ when I see an office-holder in - 
“ terfering in elections, the first idea that strikes me is, that he is thinking of his office 
‘‘and his bread ; and therefore an unfit adviser of those whose only object is “ the public 
good.” The next idea that struck you was, perhaps, the no less impressive speech of 
Mr. Senator Buchanan, on the floor of the House of Representatives: “ Does not,” he asked 
“ the gentleman know that when a man is once appointed to office, all the selfish passions of his- 
nature are enlisted for the purpose of retaining it? The office-holders are the enlisted sol¬ 
diers of the administration by which they are sustained .” The honorable Senator is, undoubt¬ 
edly, the very best authority as to one, at least, of these “enlisted soldiers.” Another of them 
you have seen inviting the public by advertisement in the official journal of the Government, to 
come to his office, at the Treasury Department, and receive electioneering pamphlets.* 

I partly promised not to go out of the limits of the city of Washington for illustrations of this 
topic. But with your permission I will refer you to some significant transactions in another 
city. It was proved, on oath, before the last Investigating Committee, that the officers of the 
customs at New \ ork were taxed, according to the amount of their respective salaries, by the 
general committee of the Administration party, for electioneering purposes; that the collector of 
this committee kept a register of the persons taxed, and the amount assessed on each individual; 


* See T. Hampton’s ad vertisement, Washington Globe, August 3, [6] 1839. 

The original of the subjoined letter, from the Commissioner of the Patent Office may he seen at the office of the 
Madisonian. It is, with the exception of the signature, lithographed; so that each" federal officer at the seat of 
Oovernment has only to sign and frank letters already prepared for him, and circulate them, with specimen num¬ 
bers of “ the Extra Globe,” all over the country. 


* » A iillJN u 1 vl 1 Y j c/ LLTZUCil y 

Sir : I enclose you herewith a Prospectus for the Extra Globe, with the first number as a sample. These papers 
\vill explain themselves. The cheap rate at which the Extra Globe will be published, will enable every mail in 
the country to become a subscriber. For a single dollar he can obtain a weekly newspaper, published at the seat 
oi the national Government, containing the latest political and foreign news. If a number of persons choose to unite 
and forward a larger sum, the subscription to each, as you will perceive by the terms of the Prospectus, will be less 
than a dollar, whilst our political opponents control a majority of the public presses in every State, it is believed 
in the Union, and have in their employ a corps of letter writers stationed in this city and elsewhere, who are daily 
misrepresenting.public men and public measures, it becomes important, to counteract their effect, that a 
cheap medium, through which true information may be conveyed to the people, should be patronised. The Globe, 
it is well known, is the leading Democratice paper; and because it is so, great efforts have been made by the federal 
party to impair its just influence on public opinion. They have not succeeded. 

Let me hope that you will take some interest in giving to the Extra Globe an extensive circulation in your 
neighborhoood. J 




I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 


H. L. ELLSWORTH, 


23 


that if the individual assessed declined to pay the tax, he was reported to the committee for dis¬ 
missal Ironr office ; that the collector of the port was a court of appeals to correct any errors in 
the assessment; that the tax on one class of officers was collected by the deputy surveyor of the 
port; and that, on a particular occasion, when a weigher objected to paying the tax, the deputy 
surveyor extorted it from him by threatening his removal. This was the affirmative proof. The 
negative evidence was yet more powerful; as you will perceive on examining the testimony of 
Yanderpoel and Becker. The last witness was one of the “Tammany Hall” collectors of the 
tariff on office-holders. Thirty-five interrogatories were put to him, some of which he answered, 
and others he “respectfully declined” to answer; acting, as he said, under the advice of his law¬ 
yer, “ Mr. Jesse Oakly,” and under an obligation of secrecy , which the “finance committee” 
had imposed on their collectors. If you take the trouble to collate the questions to Becker, his 
answers, and his refusals to answer, you will find that he makes out a case even stronger than 
that proved by the other witnesses. With all his caution he seems to have fallen into the common 
error of clients, that of only half stating his case to his lawyer. He testified that A. B. Yander¬ 
poel, a custom-house officer, had been a member of the “ General Democratic Republican Com¬ 
mittee,” or of the “finance committee” thereof. He was then asked, “Were any other officers 
of the custom-house members of either of the said committees during the past four years'?” He 
answered, as surely he would not have answered under advisement, “ Yes ; but they were gen¬ 
erally elected previous to their appointment in the custom-house.” The bearing of such an an¬ 
swer on the general belief that partisan activity was recognised by President Van Buren as a title 
to office, is so obvious, that “ Mr. Jesse Oakly,” had he been at the witness’s elbow, must have 
advised him4o “respectfully decline answering.” 

The corruption exposed by this evidence existed in the very branch of the public service, and 
in the very city, which had attracted the special attention of Mr. Van Buren and others, who 
made the report to the Senate, in 1826, on Executive patronage. In that document they exem¬ 
plified the vastness and the dangers of Federal patronage, by reference “ to a work of unques¬ 
tionable authority upon this subject, the Blue Booh of the Republic, which corresponds with the 
Red Booh of monarchies,” and read several passages of “that growing little volume,” contain¬ 
ing a list of the names and salaries of the custom-house officers in New York. Then these pa¬ 
triots broke out in the following strain of holy horror : 

“ A formidable list, indeed !—formidable in numbers, and still more so from the vast amount 
“ of money in their hands. The action of such a body of men, supposing them to be animated 
“ by one spirit,must be tremendous in an election ; and that they will be so animated is a prop- 
“ osition too plain to need demonstration. Power over a mail’s support has cdwuys been held 
“ and admitted to be power over his wll. The President has ‘power’ over the ‘support’ of all 
“ these officers, and they again have power over the support of debtor merchants to the amount 
“ of ten millions of dollars per annum, and over the daily support of an immense number of indi- 
“ viduals, professional, mechanical, and day-laboring, to whom they can and will extend or deny 
“ a valuable private as well as public patronage, according to the part they shall act in State as 
“ well as in Federal elections. Still, this* is only a branch, a mere prong, of Federal patronage 
“ in the city of New York.” 

At that time, the number of the officers enumerated was 174, and the amount of their salaries 
$119,620 39. It has been computed that their number is at present 497, and the amount of 
their salaries $555,615 92 ; the average yearly addition of ©fficers being 23, and the average year¬ 
ly increase of compensation being $31,142 52! And “this is only a branch, a mere prong, of 
Federal patronage.” The “ Blue Book” of the Republic, corresponding with the Red Book 
“ of Monarchies,” is indeed “ a growing little volume !” At the time of Mr. Van Buren’s re¬ 
port, it contained 2S0 pages. The last volume has grown to 500 pages ! The evidence in the 
report of the Investigating Committee shows that the New Y*ork custom-house officers are “ an¬ 
imated by one spirit,” and through an instrumentality which even the pious reformers of 1826 
did not dream of—a tariff on salaries! 

Before the exposure made by the committee, it had been a matter of general belief, and it was 
so charged, that the salaries of office-holders were taxed, directly or indirectly, to carry on the 
electioneering business of the Administration. But the charge, though founded on good evi¬ 
dence, was denied to be true. The report made further denial vain. The fact was proved. 
All that remained to be done then was to admit, and, if possible, excuse it. This hazardous 
service was imposed on the Hon. Garret D. Wall, chairman of the Judiciary Committe in 
the Senate. He accordingly set to work, and rather overdid his task. He produced a report, 
already referred to, of which the aim was not to excuse merely, but to justify the interference of 
Federal officers in elections. Nay, that remarkable document denounced all who might omit so 
to interfere, as eunuchs, mutes, outlaws , outcasts, lepers, slaves, aliens, See., as being worse 
even than “ corporations of associated wealth.” These were significant hints, fellow-citizens, 
from an Administration leader to the “ enlisted soldiers.” Deeply as the heart of every patriot 
must have been grieved by the promulgation of so atrocious a paper in the form of a public doc¬ 
ument, emanating from the Senate of the United States, he was not without consolation. I pray 


24 


every one of you who has not read, to delay no longer to read, the reply of Senator Rives ; a re¬ 
ply which, fur logic, eloquence, and patriotism, is worthy of the best days of Virginia. I here 
is another pleasing incident in the history of the report. If the signs of the times are to be re¬ 
lied on, it will have its full share in the overthrow of the present dynasty. The American peo¬ 
ple can never stand the avowals of that paper. After all, these avowals are not, perhaps, to be 
Wondered at, strongly as they must be detested. The author is known to be a Jackson-} an 
Burenizsd ultra!,st of the old Federal school; and this is said by the curious in natural history to 
he the m >st rabid cross in the whole genus of the political mule. 

I come now to the part of the report which notices the 

Anti-Constitutional Doctrines and Practices 
of the last and present Administrations. 

The catalogue is imperfect, and the theme is boundless. I shall take up a few heads only. 

In his bank veto, in 1832, President Jackson announced the following proposition : 

“Each puhlic officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears 
“ that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. 
“ It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, 
“ to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them 
“ for passage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for 
“judicial decision.” 

This doctrine, worthy of the wildest moments of the French revolution, was received by our 
sober, thinking, American people, with the contempt which it deserved. They saw and felt 
that no community in which it might be acted on generally, could last for a single day; and that 
the necessity of some authority, universally accredited, for expounding the laws, was radicated 
in the very nature of the social system. They had, on full consideration, delegated this power 
to the Judiciary—the department of their Government best fitted, by education and habit, to 
exercise it properly, and, from the same causes, as well as from relative weakness, in compari¬ 
son with the other departments, least capable of abusing it. The circumstances in which the 
transfer of the power was attempted were not calculated to reconcile them to the usurpation. 
John Marshall was the head of the Judicary, and Andrew Jackson was the head of the Ex¬ 
ecutive branch of the Government. 

The doctrine, connected with subsequent pretensions, amounted to a claim that every public 
officer should obey the Constitution as the President might choose to understand it; for, in the 
protest of 1834, he says : 

“ Among the duties imposed in him, and which he is sworn to perform, is that of * taking 
“ care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ Being thus made responsible for the entire action 
“ of the Executive Department , it was but reasonable that the power of appointing, overseeing, 
“ and controlling those who execute the laws—a power in its nature executive— should remain 
“ in him.” 

And again, in the same paper: 

“The whole Executive power being vested in the President, who is responsible for its exer- 
“ cise, it is a necessary consequence that he should have a right to employ agents of his own 
“ choice to aid him in the performance of his duties, and to discharge them when he is no 
“ longer willing to be responsible for their acts.” 

You see at once, fellow-citizens, that the English of all this is, that when any executive officer 
acts on an understanding, different from the President’s, of the Constitution, the President is 
bound by his oath of office to “discharge” the officer. 

An appropriate illustration of this doctrine appears in the report of the last Investigating Com¬ 
mittee. A practice had grown up in the city of New York, which is thus described by Mr. Sec¬ 
retary Woodbury: 

“It frequently happens, especially at the larger ports of entry, on the importation of some 
“ particular description of goods, that the importer disputes the duty to which the collector (act- 
“ ing under the instructions of the Comptroller) decides the articles in question to be liable un- 
“ der the tarifl law; but, with the view of getting possession of his goods, the importer pays, 
“ under protest, the amount of duty demanded by the collector, and, at the same time, gives 
“ that officer notice not to pay the money over to the Government, and immediately institutes a 
“ suit against the collector to recover back the amount so paid.” 

Jesse Hoyt, the present collector at New York, frequently held large sums of money thus paid 
under “protest.” At one time, by his own admission, they amounted to $124,000." “It is,” 
he writ to the Secretary of the Treasury, “very apparent we cannot get on, and execute the 
laws as we understand them” The moneys thus received under “ protest” he deposited to his 
own private credit, instead of depositing them to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States. 
He made the same disposition of moneys received in payment for “ unascertained duties ”_re¬ 

ceipts which the Secretary of the Treasury thus explains: 


25 


(t , *? an im P or tation of goods liable to cash duties, some time, unavoidably must elapse before 

if t ic duties thereon can be calculated, and th eexact amount payable ascertained. It appears to 
>e t ic practicf in such cases to receive? from the importer a sum of money deemed sufficient to 
cover t ic amount when ascertained, and any deficiency is afterwards made up, or the surplus 
re un C( by the collector, as the case may be. These lunds the collector designates as money 
taken and held for unascertained duties.” 

1 he payments made under “protest,” and for “unascertained duties,” being public moneys, 
the secretary of the Treasury required—no “ would suggest to”—the collector to deposite them 
to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States. But Mr. Hoyt preferred to “support” the 
lavv “as he understood it,” and held on to the money. A protracted correspondence ensued. 

I he Secretary of the Treasury betook himself to the Attorney General, and requested his official 
opinion on the subject. This was a trying moment to the “appointed orator of the Constitu¬ 
tion, for the collector at New \ork was, of course, “one of the main pillars of the democratic 
cause.” But Mr. Grundy stood fire; and, as you never before had, and may not have again, 
reason to applaud him for firmness, you will the more cheerfully do justice to his conduct on the 
occasion referred to. He decided that the collector had no “ legal right to retain the money ” 
received under “ protest in his own hands beyond the control of the Department ,” &c., and 
that he ought “to pay over to the Treasury all moneys received by him under such circum¬ 
stances.” It is true that, 

“ Scared at the sound himself had made,” 

he subsides, in the next paragraph, into a mere impression that “ the law never intended that 
money collected for public purposes should be held by individuals,” &c. But he rallies again, 
and marches through the “ unascertained duties’ ’ like a hero. 

“ It could never (he says) have been the intention of Congress that a collector should receive 
“ money for duties under a private arrangement with the importer, and keep the money in his 
“ hands until it was convenient for him to cause the amount of duties to be ascertained. If 
“ such a practice were tolerated, it might be the interest of the collector to postpone the ascer- 
“ tainment of the duties, as, in the meantime, he would have the uncontrolled use of the mo- 
“ ney. It would also increase the danger of faithlessness in the collector, by permitting large 
“ amounts of money to remain with him, and under his individual control, instead of being in 
“ the Treasury of the United States. The tenor and spirit of all our revenue laws seem [seem! 
seem only I “oh, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Grundy, oh!”] to inculcate the idea that the intention of 
“ Congress has at all times been, that money collected for revenue should be promptly placed in 
“ the Treasury, and not be permitted to remain in the hands of the collector; therefore, in any 
“ regulations you may make upon this subject, that object should be constantly kept in view.” 

Thus far, the Attorney General. But what said the collector 1 Why, this : “ The reasoning 
of the Attorney General is very sound on both points as to what the law should be;” and “that 
the law ought to be as the Attorney General seems [ <( seems,” again !] to be of opinion it is, 
there caji be no doubt. But,” 8tc. &c. In short, Mr. Hoyt understood the law differently; 
and, acting on his understanding of it, continued to keep the money. 

The proposition, of which Mr. Hoyt’s conduct is a practical illustration, though limited in its 
’terms to Executive officers, cannot be rested on any ground which would make it true as to them, 
and not true to as to every body else. Apply it to the transactions of ordinary life, and whither 
would it lead you 1 One individual owes another a debt, and the creditor brings suit. The 
marshal or sheriff, to whom the process is handed, thinks that it has issued under an unconstitu- 
tianal law, and refuses to serve it. If he persist in the refusal, there is an end of the matter. 
Perhaps, however, on “sober second thought,” he waives his objections, and consents to serve 
the writ. But then a new difficulty arises. The debtor, the man who is sued, understands the 
law differently from both creditor and sheriff. He thinks, as he would be very apt to think, that 
the law is unconstitutional; resists the officer, and “strikes the process dead in his hands” by 
knocking him down. This is the natural result of the nullification doctrine of the arch anti- 
nullifer. * 

The report notices President Jackson’s claims, put fonvard in his Protest in 1S34, to be “the 
direct Representative of the American people.” The object of the claim was to justify 
his seizure of the money of the American people, and it w r as afterwards kept as a sort of cold- 
souse argument to be used in cases for which no other apology could be thought of. The pre ¬ 
tension goes far ahead of the English doctrine, from which it appears to have been borrowed, 
though with a less accurate understanding of the model than might have been expected from a 
Doctor of Laws. Mr. Burke had said, seventy years ago, “The Kino is the Representative of 

* Since this speech was delivered, 1 have seen in the Georgetown Advocate the following exemplification of the 
doctrine copied from the New Orleans Picayune: At a court of law in Texas, “a dispute astotne disposition of 
some cause arose between the Judge and the Clerk;, when the latter, finding that his legal opinion was about to be 
disregarded, thrust ths papers into the stove, saying, ‘T shall abrogate the whole proceedings of the Court.’ The 
j n d ff | immediately entered a demurrer, in the shape of his two fists; the Clerk rejoined in a similar way, and their 
respective friends coming to their assistance, threw the temple of the blind goddess into a state of the utmost con¬ 
fusion.” 


26 


the people;” but he added, “so are the Lords, so are the Judges. They are all trustees for the 
people, as well as the Commons-” According to the improved doctrine, the President is not 
only the King, and a “trustee,” but he is the sole trustee for the people; and a trustee, too* 
•with the novel powers of breaking the trust, and of doing as he pleases with the estate, irrespon¬ 
sible to any body. 

The abuse of the veto power opens a field for comment so wide that, under any circumstan¬ 
ces, I should hesitate to enter it. On the present occasion, I can only ask you to glance at it. 
Alexander Hamilton, who has been represented as the advocate of too much strength in the 
Executive, described the veto power as “a shield to the Executive against legislative encroach¬ 
ment;” as “an additional security against the enaction of improper laws;” and as establishing. 
“ a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the ef- 
“ fects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may 
“ happen to influence a majority of that body.” This passage is from the Federalist, (No. 73, j 
and is to be regarded as the doctrine not of Hamilton only, but of Madison and Jay also. 
Mr. Jefferson, in an official opinion prepared by him when Secretary of State, characterizes 
the veto power as “the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against invasions of the 
“ Legislature: 1st, the rights of the Executive; 2d, of the Judiciary ; 3d of the States and State 
“ Legislatures.” When President Jackson left office, it was thought that he had exhausted the 
capacity of the veto power for abuse; though Mr. Duane had not then, I believe, disclosed the 
fact, subsequently stated in his publication of 1838, that it was a part of the President’s plan in 
seizing the public money to veto any law which might be enacted for restoring it. But Presi¬ 
dent Van Buren, while he stands ready “to carry out” the “principles and policy” of his “il¬ 
lustrious predecessor” in regard to every thing, has made considerable advances towards perfect¬ 
ing “the work so gloriously begun,” of absorbing in the veto the whole legislative power of the 
nation. President Jackson, prodigal and odious as was his use of this power, had applied it 
only to bills actually passed. President Van Buren has corrected the oversight, by repeatedly 
threatening Congress in advance with the veto. 

Another cause of “alarm” is the doctrine and practice of the Executive “to strangle con¬ 
gressional investigations of public abuses.” You remember the investigating commit¬ 
tee which, in January, 1837, was extorted from a hostile majority in the House of Representa¬ 
tives, after many a baffled effort, by Henry A. Wise —that patriot, whose talents, at once bril¬ 
liant and solid, whose capacity for labor and incapacity for fear, have acquired for him, in the blos¬ 
som of his youth, the fame of a great public benefactor. The President addressed a letter to 
that committee, denouncing the debate previous to its appointment, in the House of Represent¬ 
atives, as being too free ; denouncing the act of the House, raising a committee to inquire into 
the condition of the Executive Departments, as making an audacious “issue” with him, who 
had “alleged, in his annual message, that” they were all in a “prosperous condition,” and con¬ 
ducted with “ ability” and “ integrity ;” characterizing the committee as a “ Spanish inquisition,” 
and as having no power to inquire whether or not abuses existed, because they had made no, 
“specific charges;” describing the chairman of the committee and his “associates” as calumni¬ 
ators; threatening to prohibit the Executive officers from giving evidence; and showing that he 
had used one of the members of the committee as a spy and informer on the rest, and that he: 
assumed to supervise and control their proceedings. 

This committee had been yielded by the majority, partly through a sense of shame, and partly 
through a hope that, being appointed almost at the close of the session, it would not have time 
to do any thing : but it was appointed against the influence of the Administration. It was a 
great thing for the friends of the Constitution to get any chance of investigation. But it was 
only an ovation, not a triumph ; for the committee was packed by a presidential serf, who filled 
the Speaker’s chair, and who, against all parliamentary rule, and in contempt of common de¬ 
cency, placed on the committee a majority who were unfriendly to its object! It consisted of 
nine persons; and six —two-thirds—of them knew it was their business to think it a “ Spanish in¬ 
quisition,” and they were appointed for that reason ! The bitterest comment on this proceeding 
which I can conceive of is to refer you to the contrasted conduct of the present Speaker of the 
House of Representatives; who, though he may sometimes, in aiming to keep a perfectly straight 
position, bend a little backward, always shows that he is influenced by a high and chaste sense 
of honor and justice. 

The majority on the committee referred to, devoted themselves to defeating its objects—to 
smothering the truth. A remarkable instance of this occurred in a scrutiny affecting the Post¬ 
master General, which was attempted. The charge was, that a company had been formed to buy 
some Indian lands, on the usual “principles and policy” of such companies; that the consent of 
the President being necessary, by treaty law, to the sale, Kendall was admitted a partner in the 
profits, to the amount of fifty thousand dollars, for the sole consideration of his influence with 
the President in obtaining authority for the sale; and that the lands were purchased by the com¬ 
pany. Here was a “specific charge.” A witness testified: “I have no information of any 
“ persons interested at this time with Mr. Kendall in the profits of buying and selling~public 
“ lands.” A question was then asked, “Have you any information of persons who have been 


27 


11 interested with Mr. Kendall, since he has been an executive officer, in the profits of buying: 
* e and selling the public lands!” The question was objected to, and voted down by the major¬ 
ity ! 1 he same game was played when an investigation was attempted into Kendall’s connex¬ 

ion with the Globe newspaper. Well and faithfully did the majority perform the service ex¬ 
pected irom them—that of “strangling’ investigation! And so successful were their labors* 
that the people called the committee “ The Committee of Concealment;” and yet the minority 
elicited enough to startle the whole nation. The obsequious majority were not forgotten by 
1 resident \ an Buren. Four out of the six have already got office. Of the fifth, the services, 
though sincere, seem .to have been too trivial for recompense. As to the sixth, the Administra¬ 
tion shrunk, perhaps, from adding to their previous outrages on the moral sense of the country, by 
openly rewarding him; and his political circumstances relieved them from any dread of his re¬ 
sentment at being neglected. 

The peculation letter of March, 1838, from the Treasury, came on—the famous Document 
No. 297 ; and then, in December, the Swartwout disclosures. Inquiry could no longer be re¬ 
pelled ; and the Executive failed in his death-struggle to pack another investigating committee. 
r J he House of Representatives refused to trust Mr. Speaker Polk again, and determined to elect 
the committee themselves. The next attempt was, that the committee should be chosen from 
the opposition ranks exclusively in which case, when they should present a report, it was to be 
decried as a one-sided partisan paper. So far was the policy of intimidation carried, that Mr. 
Ely Moore, then a Representative from the city of New York, and now surveyor of that port, 
proclaimed, on the floor of the House, any “democrat” who would serve on the commitee as a 
“ traitor' 1 and a cojispirator.” But Administration gentlemen were found whom the threats 
of faction could not frighten from a public duty; and a committee was finally elected, constituted 
on proper parliamentary principles, and above personal exception in any instance. In the pro¬ 
gress of their labors, they were met by efforts on the part of witnesses “to strangle investiga¬ 
tion,” of which the example had been furnished from head quarters. 

No feature of the present administrative system is more hideous than its hostility to tub 
judiciary. Our countrymen boast that their Government is emphatically a Government of laws ; 
that the temples of justice are the citadels of their liberties. To the manifold assaults of President 
Jackson on the Judiciary, I cannot further advert, except to remind you of his usurpation of tho 
right of the Judiciary to expound the laws. In the plan of bringing “the Judiciary into public odi¬ 
um and contempt,” President Van Buren has been particularly zealous “to carry out” the “prin¬ 
ciples and policy” of his “venerated chief”—“to perfect the work which he had so gloriouly be¬ 
gun.” The report notices his sanction of the conduct of the Postmaster General in disobeying 
a law of the land, and trampling the courts of justice under his “hireling” feet. In a coun¬ 
try, and with a Government like ours, this is perhaps a more momentous subject than any other 
in the paper before you. But I forbear to do more than to call your attention to the language of 
the Supreme Court, in the case of Kendall against the United States. 

“ It was,” said that august tribunal, “ urged at the bar that the Postmaster General was alone 
“ subject to the direction and control of the President with respect to the execution of the duty 
“ imposed on him by this law ; and this right of the President is claimed as growing out of the 
“ obligation imposed upon him by the Constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully- 
“ executed. This is a doctrine that cannot receive the sanction of this court. It would be vest- 
“ ing in the President a dispensing power, which has no countenance for its support in any 
“ part of the Constitution; and is asserting a principle which, if carried out in its results to all 
“ cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power entirely to control the legis- 
“ lation of Congress, and paralyze the administration of justice. 

“ To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully^ executed,, 
“ implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the Constitution, and en- 
“ tirely inadmissible.” 

A dispensing power claimed in the nineteenth century, and for the Chief Magistrate of a 
Republic! A power, of which the claim by a British monarch, a century and a half ago, 
cost him his throne. Look in Belsliam’s History at the Bill of Rights of 1689. The very first 
declarations of that celebrated paper are : 

“ That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, 
“ without consent of Parliament, is illegal: 

“ That the pretended power of dispensing with laws , or the executing of laws, by regal au- 
“ thority, as it hath been assumed, and exercised of late, is illegal.” 

President Van Buren’s treatment of the Judiciary affords only one of numerous evidences of 
his success in “ perfecting the work so gloriously begun.” While he holds on to all his legacy 
of usurpations and abuses, he has, in some portentous instances besides those already mention¬ 
ed, transcended his “ venerated chief”—has out-Heroded Herod. The only mitigated symptom, 
which you will be able to detect in his conduct is, that in his first annual message he styles Gen¬ 
eral Jackson not his “ illustrious predecessor,” but his ‘‘ immediate predecessor.” This slight 
spark of rebellion w r as, however, soon extinguished, and the flame of loyalty has since blazed 
more brightly than before. 


28 


Allow me to refer you to a few more specimens of the “ principles and policy” peculiar to the 
■“ honored instrument:” 

In his message at the special session, a leading text is, that “ communities are apt to look to 
Government for too much.” The running commentary is, that the people have no right to look 
to Government for any thing; that Government was instituted for its own sake, not for the sake 
of the people; that it is separate and distinct from the people; and that there ought to be two 
sorts of currency in the country—a better currency for the office-holders, and a worse currency 
for the people. This is not the opinion of the people themselves. They begin their Constitu¬ 
tion by saying : 

“ We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish jus- 
“ tice, insure domest'c tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general wel- 
“ fare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish 
“ this Constitution for the United States of America:” 

In his two first annual messages he recommends a plan for giving away, or rather bartering 
for votes, to particular States the public lands—the common property of all the States: 

In his annual message of December 3, 1838, he calls for a committee of Congress to inspect 
the accounts of fiscal officers, and report, not to Congress, but to him; thus seeking to degrade 
the Representatives of the people into agents of the Executive: 

In his annual message transmitted to Congress on the 24th of December, 1839, he asserts, 
and in a mode characteristically insidious, that “the Executive” is “a component part of the 
legislative power;” though the very first article of the Constitution of the United States declares 
that “ all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States , 
which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives:” 

And in the same message he “ cannot too strongly recommend” the plan of his Secretary of 
War for raising a militia force of two hundred thousand men, to be armed, equipped, and 
paid by the United States, and of course under the command of the President, one-half of whom 
are to be in active service. 

You cannot fail to see that this last recommendation is, in substance, a demand for an im¬ 
mense standing army. Truly, this is the power of the sivord; and if the President gain, as 
lie will do if the sub-Treasury bill pass, the power of the purse too, where would be the differ¬ 
ence between Sultan Abdul Medjid and Sultan Martin Van Buren! Yes—there would still be 
one point of difference, and that decidedly against us. The Turkish brother does not pretend 
to be a “Democrat.” 

I have before noticed other additions made by President Van Buren to the “ principles and 
policy” of President Jackson, and will not advert to them again. 

Fellow-citizens, I should insult your understandings and trifle with your time, by asking you 
whether the “pernicious projects” “begun” and enforced by one of these Presidents, and ad¬ 
vanced almost to a “ perfect” state by the other, are consistent with the Constitution of your 
country, or with any known polity which recognises the people as the source of Government] 
I will not ask you whether the history of the present administrative system is not, in the lan¬ 
guage of the Declaration of Independence, “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all 
having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States]’ But I will 
show you the President’s own opinion on the subject. In the report in 1826, before cited, when 
not one of these “ injuries” or “usurpations” had been committed, the mere possibility ©f any 
of them roused the indignation of Mr. Senator Van Buren. “ What,” he exclaimed, with a patri¬ 
ot’s generous rage, and a prophet’s far-seeing eye, “ what will this be but the Government of 
“ one manl And what is the Government of one man but a monarchy! Names are nothing. 
“ The nature of a thing is in its substance. The first Roman Emperor was styled Emperor of 
“ the Republic, and the last French Emperor took the same title; and their respective countries 
“ were just as essentially monarchical before as after the assumption of these titles. It can- 
“ not be denied or dissembled but that this Federal Government gravitates to the same point.’ 
In less than three years from the date of this malediction, the law of political gravitation fell into 
the keeping of the Newtons of the “spoils system.” Only eleven more years—scarcely more 
than half a generation—have since passed, and you all see—you all feel, what “essentially” 
“ this Federal Government” is now. 

Time presses ; and I leap over many pregnant topics of the report to get at the 
Peculations, and the “Superintendence of the Revenue.” 

You have already seen that peculations must, on general principles, be the regular, and that 
•they have, to an enormous extent, been the actual, consequence of the spoils system. The de¬ 
falcations of Swartwout, Price, and a score or two of the land receivers, alone, have been esti¬ 
mated at three millions of dollars. The full amount of all the official robberies is still un¬ 
known, and there are strong reasons for the fear that it is incalculable. One of the first acts 
of the Investigating Committee of 1839 was to pass, on the 21st of January, a resolution calling 
on the President of the United States to cause 


29 


t( This committee to be furnished by the proper Executive Departments xvith a table showing 
the defalcations which had occurred among collectors, receivers, and disbursers of public money, 
“ and other Public officers, since the 4th day of March, 1829 ; the names of the defaulters; the 
^ amount ot each defalcation; when each case occurred ; the length of time each case has exist- 
ed 5 what steps have been taken by the proper Departments or officers to prosecute the default¬ 
ers and to secure the United States, in each case; and what defaulters are retained in the same 
“ offices in which they became defaulters, or have been appointed to other offices.” 

The President referred this communication to the Secretary of the Treasury. That function* 
a fter keeping the committee waiting more than four weeks, informed them that the time be¬ 
fore the close of the session of Congress was too short for collecting the information 1 From this 
response, the committee say, 

They “are compelled reluctantly to infer, 

“1st. I hat the accounts and records of the several Departments, in general, are so incomplete 
and defective as not to exhibit, without great labor and delay, the true relations of collectors, 
“ receivers, and disbursers of the public money, and of other officers, to the Government, so as to 
“ distinguish debtors from defaulters, and creditors from both ; or, 

“2dly. That the number of the defaulters has multiplied so rapidly since 1829, under the 
“ system of accountability pursued towards collectors, receivers, and disbursers of the public 
“ money, and other officers, as to preclude the practicability of securing an account current of 
“ their defalcations upon the records of the Departments, with all the clerical force at the com- 
“ mand of those Departments under existing laws and appropriations.” 

The committee might properly have drawn loth these inferences. Public robbery is a subject 
on which our rulers prudently think “ the least said the soonest mended;” and that, though 
“ delay is dangerous” to the people, it is good for them, for it puts off the evil day. The Pres¬ 
ident, in his last annual message, after admitting that Swartwout may have been a sub-Treasurer, 
and doubting whether his defalcation could “ be usef ully referred to as a test of the compara¬ 
tive safety” of the system, says: 

“ Additional information will also be furnished bv the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
“ in reply to a call made upon that officer by the House of Representatives at the last session, 
“ requiring detailed information on the subject of defaults by public officers or agents under each 
“ Administration, from 1789 to 1837. This document will be submitted to you in a few days.” 

It is now the 18th of February, more than seven weeks since the opening of the session, and 
this document, called for by the last Congress, has not, so far as I can learn, yet been furnished ! 

The President, in announcing Swartwout’s defalcation to Congress, suggests “the estabjish- 
“ ment of a more severe and secure system for the safe-keeping and disbursement of the public 
“ moneys than any that has heretofore existed.” The purpose of the suggestion was to insinu¬ 
ate a defence of the Administration against the charge of negligence, at the least, which con¬ 
science, that unerring monitor, warned him would be made. His aim was to persuade the peo¬ 
ple that they had been robbed of their money, from day to day for a period of seven years, as he 
says, because the laws for its security were defective. The insufficiency of this plea is as mani¬ 
fest as the sun at a summer’s noonday. The wit of man never devised means more conducive 
to their object than is the system constituted by acts of Congress and the regulations made by 
Hamilton, Gallatin, and Dallas, Secretaries of the Treasury, to the safety of the public moneys. 
Under that system, vigilantly administered, they had remained safe, with such occasional excep¬ 
tions, and these were slight, infrequent, and promptly met, as no system could entirely prevent, 
for forty years. At last the unhappy discovery was made, that the interests of the Government 
were separate from the interests of the People; that “all communities are apt to look to Gov- 
'eminent for too much.” It is a peculiarity of the spoils system, that, while powers at least 
doubtful are boldly exerted, and others as boldly usurped, when the interests of the party are the 
object, yet, in cases involving only the interests of the people, no law is plain enough for Execu¬ 
tive scruples. In such cases, the fear lest, in executing a law, an officer should transcend his 
powers, is given as the reason for not executing the law at all. The Secretary of the Treasury is 
of opinion that the clause of the law of 1789, requiring him “to superintend the collection of tho 
revenue,” is not sufficiently distinct. Superintendence , he argues, does not mean control; and, 
therefore, if I attempt to control a collector or other fiscal subordinate, I shall be exercising a 
power not conferred on me by law, and that would not be right. No, I think it far better to let 
him do as he pleases. I have looked into all the vocabularies, from Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary 
down to the Treasury of Knowledge, to find out what “ superintend ” means; for, ever since' 
General Jackson was made President, we have made it a point to go for good English as strictly 
as we go for the Constitution. Now, it is true that Dr. Johnson defines “superintendence” to 
be “ superior care; the act of overseeing with authority .” But that only means that the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury is a superior man; and has authority to do whatever a defaulter tolls him to 
do. I am quite clear that “oversee” means “overlook,” because “see” sometimes means 
“look;” and “overlook” is the same as “look over.”—And truly Mr. Secretary Woodbury 
“looked over,” yes, right “over” Swartwout, Price, Harris, Boyd, and a hundred other 


30 


“main pillars of the democratic cause,” while they were plundering the public Treasury, under 
his eyes. 

An edifying exception to the mode, habitual with the spoils’ dynasty, of superintending the 
revenue, was produced by one of the custom-house officers at New York, on his examination 
before the last Investigating Committee. It appears in a letter from the Treasury Department, 
dated September 19, 1837, and is in the following words: 

“ Joseph Hopkins’s bill, charged in contingent account one hundred and ten dollars and fifty 
“ cents, per voucher No. 3, should be one hundred and ten dollars onlt ; and you are requested 
“ to see that the fiftt cents overpaid is refunded by the said Hopkins in his next account. 

“ Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

“ GEORGE WOLF, Comptroller. 

“Samuel Savartwout, Esq., Collector, New York.” 

[A voice here exclaimed, “ What was the postage of the letter'!” There was no postage; 
the letter was either franked or smuggled.] 

This is very good, so far as it goes ; and, if you believe that Mr. Hopkins did refund the fifty 
cents , you will, of course, give the Administration credit for that sum in their peculation account 
with the people. The debit side of that account is some millions of dollars , yet untold. The 
account will not be fully audited till after the 4th of March, 1841. Meanwhile the people know 
enough of it to ask the guards of the Treasury, in a voice of thunder, Why is it that you have 
allowed us to be plundered of all this money 1 Our pensive President answers for them, “The 
■“ appointing power cannot always be well advised in its selections “ public officers are not 
“ always proof against temptation.” This plea is rather too abstract—too philosophical for a suf¬ 
fering people; and they press for something more specific. And then the answer comes, Though 
we have lost considerable sums for you, yet it could not have been through want of vigilance, 
for don’t you see how particular we were with Hopkins ? The people ask again, Why did you 
let the big robbers escape 1 Why let Swartwout go to England 1 why let Price go to France 1 
why let Boyd remain, lording it, like a great land prince, over our own lands in the West 1 And 
so the people go on with the chronicles of the defaulters. You permitted those men to rob us 
without mercy, but at least you might have caught the robbers. Why did you not catch them 1 
We were too busy. Busy ?■ Why this was your business; what were you doing 1 We were 
busy trying to catch Hopkins. 

There is a passage in a letter from President Washington to his Secretary of War, which de¬ 
serves the attentive consideration of the Secretary of the Treasury. It is as follows: 

“You will recollect, I dare say, that more than once I expressed to you my opinion of the ex- 
“ pediency of committing the details of the Department to the exertions of others, and of bestow- 
“ ing your thoughts and attention on the more important duties of it; which, in the scenes 
“ we were contemplating, were alone sufficient to occupy the time and all the consideration of 
“ the Secretary. I went no further then, nor should I have renewed the subject now, had not 
“ the delay in issuing the commissions and commencing the recruiting service excited great rep¬ 
robation and blame, though, as I have observed before, no one knows where with precision to 
“ fix it. Generally, however, it is attributed to the want of system and exertion in the Depart- 
“ ment of War.” 

“The want of system and exertion in the” Treasury Department was undoubtedly a main 
cause of the unparalleled peculations which have amazed the world. But the predominant 
cause lies deeper. It lies, as I have shown yon, in the very foundations of the spoils’ system. 
The genius of that system subjects the head of the Government to the dominion of the subordi¬ 
nates. One result is that the defaulters are a distinct and powerful class—a “ moneyed aristoc¬ 
racy almost “a component part” of the power of this Government—a sort of fourth estate, ad¬ 
ded to the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, and exerting a controlling influence 
over them all except the last. That, thank Heaven, is yet safe. The spirit of Marshall is still 
alive. The ermine of our judges is still unspotted. 

Fellow-citizens, I have trespassed a long time on your generous indulgence, and yet have said 
only a fragment of what I might say. Many topics have been omitted, and none has been ex¬ 
hausted. I must hasten to a close. But any notice, however brief, of the present administrative 
system would be inexcusable, which should entirely pass over the 

“Holloav and Fraudulent Pretences” 

which are its basis. Their “ name is Legion,” for they “ are many.” The history of the coun¬ 
try for the last eleven years shows that all the professions by which the “Reformers” sought 
and obtained power were false pretences; that they generated abuses far transcending not only 
all example, but even the fancy pictures drawn by their most “eminent hands”—their political 
painters when hunting after office; and that their “ principles and policy” have been marked by 
apparent zeal in breaking every pledge which they had made. To one only of their deceptions 
I shall now allude, and that is their name. They call themselves the “ Democratic party.’* 
They, who are for a “ Government of one man,” holding both sword and purse, and surrounded 


31 


I>y a nobility of peculators, the strength and ornament of the throne ; they, who think that Gov¬ 
ernment is a concern distinct from, and independent of, the people, which ought to have a “ bet¬ 
ter currency, while a worse one is good enough for the people ; they, in whose keeping the pub¬ 
lic money vanishes like chaff before the wind ; they, who wish the laborer to have no more to 
eat and wear than is barely enough to prevent starvation and freezing, barely enough to give him 
strength to toil for the large capitalist; they, yes they , forsooth, are the “ Democratic party!” 
An English judge was once provoked to exclaim, “ There is something in the impudence of the 
defendant which is almost awful!” But it seems blushing, maiden modesty, when compared 
with the impudence of these defendants in calling themselves “ Democrats.” No; if, as their 
wise men have said, “ names are nothing—the nature of a thing is in its substance,” you, fel¬ 
low-citizens, are the “ Democrats ,” in the constitutional, common-sense meaning of the word, 
\ ou believe that the people are the true and only source of all political power; you are for exact 
limits to all authority, and especially executive, which they delegate ; you believe that the object 
of Government is the “general welfare” of the people, and not the aggrandizement of office-hold¬ 
ers ; you are for holding public officers to a strict accountableness, and for the control by the peo¬ 
ple of their own money ; you are for using that money economically ; you are for fostering the 
industry of the country, and for enabling the poor man to better his condition; you do not, it is 
true, like the spoilsmen, flatter the working classes, or any other classes of your fellow-citizes ; 
you respect them too much to flatter them ; and, besides, you have no sinister designs on them. 

Yes, I repeat, you are the true “ Democrats.” Our opponents have stolen our name. Nay, 
so bold and barefaced is the theft, that I had almost called it a robbery. But it is said to be es¬ 
sential to this crime that the party robbed should be “put in fear;” and w r e, certainly, do not 
fear the spoilsmen. No; they fear us. They feel that the American people must detest their 
“ principles and policy.” Their only hope of escaping merited expulsion from power, and, per¬ 
haps, something worse, was expected disunion in our ranks. The hope is prostrated by our 
unanimity. And this leads me to notice the 

CONDUCT AND PROSPECTS OF THE OPPOSITION". 

The report on your table appeals to “the enthusiastic response which the friends of liberty 
*“ have made to the Harrisburg nominations,” as evidence that the opposition are contending, not 
for men, but for principles. Were it otherwise, the friends of that accomplished citizen, whose 
valor and martial abilities contributed so largely to the safety and glory of his country in one war, 
and whose civic talents as largely contributed to avert from her the horrors of another, would 
have sat down with sullen brows and folded arms, when they found that his claims to the Presi¬ 
dency, however respectfully considered by the convention, were ultimately rejected. But they 
have not done so. They are as ardent in supporting the choice of the convention as if it had 
been proposed by themselves. 

Yes, fellow-citizens, justly does the paper on your table applaud the magnanimity which has 
sacrificed at the shrine of patriotism “ cherished preferences for individuals.” If, in any nation 
or in any age, a party could stand excused to themselves, to their country, and to posterity, for 
identifying men with principles, who might have relied on the excuse more confidently than the 
friends of that other citizen, whose claims to the Presidency were postponed by the Harrisburg 
convention ? That citizen, the mention of whose name this evening produced such deep, re¬ 
peated, protracted, and deafening bursts of enthusiasm? It is a name inseparable from your coun¬ 
try’s history; it is the name of an orator, the strains of whose eloquence, even in another land 
and in another language, have been the chosen war-cry, on the battle’s eve, to inspire men to 

do or die,” for liberty ; it is the name of th c patriot who has stood for his country in weal and 
in wo, and has carried her safely through the most fearful trials; it is the name of the statesman 
who has been a master-builder of the edifice of her greatness and prosperity; whom the very fac¬ 
tions, of which it was the daily and hourly work to find spots in the brightness of his glory, have 
been the first, when danger was at hand, to fly to for counsel and for succor; who never re¬ 
fused the boon, and never granted it in vain, though sure that the same factions would, as they 
did, attempt the next moment to sting the powerful and generous hand which saved them ; it is 
the name of the man to whom every political adherent, and many a political adversary, gives the 
warm tribute of his affections. When the supporters of such a candidate resign him, and are 
among the foremost, except himself, to espouse the cause of another, who shall say that high- 
souled principle, that loyalty to their country, is not the polar star of the Opposition ? 

That great party, a large majority, I doubt not, of the people of the United States, have re¬ 
solved, with one voice, to support with one hand tho election of William Henry Harrison" 
to the Presidency. Delightful would it be to us, fellow-citizens, to scan the beauties of his pure 
and brilliant character. But so much time has been devoted to the examination of our political 
diseases, that only a few moments remain for discoursing on the merits of the remedy. Allow 
me to exhibit to you a brief sketch of our candidate from an unbiassed pencil; that of an intel¬ 
ligent French traveller who visited the United States in 1834 : 

“I met (says M. Chevalier) with one incident in Cincinnati, which I shall long remember. 
<< I had observed at the hotel table a man of’about the medium height, stout and muscular, and 


32 


of about the age of sixty years, yet with the active step and lively air of youth. I had been* 
f< struck with his open and cheerful expression, the amenity of his manners, and a certain air 
<( of command which appeared through his plain dress. ‘ That is (said my friend) General 
** Harrison, Clerk of the Cincinnati Court of Common Pleas.’ ‘ What! General Harrison 
‘‘ of the Tippecanoe and the Thames '?’ The same ; the ex-general, the conqueror of Tecum- 
** seh and Proctor, the avenger of our disasters on the Kaisin and at Detroit, the ex-Governor 
** of the Territory of Indiana, the ex-Senator in Congress, the ex-Minister of the United States 
‘‘ to one of the South American republics. HeJias grown old in the service of his country; he 
has passed twenty years of his life in those fierce wars with the Indians in which there was 
‘‘ less glory to be won, but more danger to be encountered, than at Rivoli and Austerlitz. He is 
now poor, with a numerous family, neglected by the Federal Government, although yet vigor- 
ous, because he has the independence to think for himself.’ ” 

The martial achievements of General Harrison have placed him high on the roll of great 
captains, and have elicited, in almost every form, enthusiastic expressions of national gratitude. 
Terrible in battle, he was merciful in victory. In one of his general orders, issued while he 
was commander-in-chief of the Northwestern army, after praising the valor displayed by his 
troops in an action with the Indians, he says: 

“ But the character of this gallant detachment, exhibiting, as it did, perseverance, fortitude, 
“ and bravery, would, however, be incomplete, if, in the midst of victory, they had forgotten 
“ the feelings of humanity. It is with the sincerest pleasure that the general has heard that the 
“ most punctual obedience was paid to his orders, in not only saving all the women and children, 
“ but in sparing all the warriors who ceased to resist; and that even when vigorously attacked 
“ by the enemy, the claims of mercy prevailed over every sense of their own danger, and this 
“ heroic band respected the lives of their prisoners. Let an account of murdered innocence be 
“ opened in the records of heaven against our enemies alone. The American soldier will 
“ follow the example of his Government; and the sword of the one will not be raised against 
“ the fallen and helpless, nor the gold of the other be paid for the scalps of a massacred enemy.’" 

No general ever enjoyed in a greater degree the confidence of his troops; a tribute not merely 
to his talents as a commander, but also to his virtues as a man. “ His soldiers,” says the his¬ 
torian, “seemed to anticipate the wishes of their general; it was only necessary to be known 
“ that he wished something done, and all were anxious to risk their lives in its accomplishment. 
“ His men would have fought better and suffered more with him, than with any other general 
“ in America.” His influence over them was so extraordinary, that he was asked how he had 
acquired it. The answer is memorable: “ By treating them with affection and kindness; by 
“ always recollecting that they were my fellow-citizens, whose feelings I was bound to respect; 
“ and by sharing with them, on every occasion, the hardships which they were obliged to un- 
“ dergo.” And yet they w'ell understood that their general would require them to do their duty 
to their country : and that he would be content with nothing less. 

It is not on the military exploits of General Harrison, illustrious as they are, that his advo¬ 
cates rest, nor that he would himself rest, his claims to the Chief Magistracy of the republic. 
In one of his admirable compositions, he says : 

“In bestowing the palm of merit, the ivorld has become wiser than formerly. The successful 
“ warrior is no longer regarded as entitled to the first place in the temple of fame. Talents of 
“ this kind have become too common, and too often used for mischievous purposes, to be re- 
“ garded as they once were. In this enlightened age, the mere hero of the field, and the suc- 
“ cessful leader of armies, may, for the moment, attract attention. But it will be such as is 
“ bestowed on the passing meteor, whose blaze is no longer remembered when it is no longer 
“ seen. To be esteemed eminently great, it is necessary to be eminently good. The qualities 
“ of the hero and the general must be devoted to the advantage of mankind, before he will be 
“ permitted to assume the title of their benefactor; and the station which he will hold in their 
“ regard and affections will depend, not upon the number and splendor of his victories, but upon 
“ the results and the use he may make of the influence he acquires from them. 

“ If the fame of our Washinton depended upon his military achievements, would the com- 
“ mon consent of the world allow him the pre-eminence he possesses? The victories at Trcn- 
“ ton, Monmouth, and York, brilliant as they w'ere, exhibiting as they certainly did the highest 
“ grade of military talents, are scarcely thought of. The source of the veneration and esteem 
“ which is entertained for his character, by every description of politicians, the monarchist and 
“ aristocrat, as well as the republican, is to be found in his undeviating and exclusive devoted- 
“ ness to the interest of his country. No selfish consideration was ever suffered to intrude itself 
“ into his mind. For his country he conquered ; and the unrivalled and increasing prosperity 
“ of that country is constantly adding fresh glory to his name.” 

These are the sentiments of a man, whose own history would have furnished him with splen¬ 
did apologies for over-valuing the military character ! His fitness for the Presidency has been 
tested and ascertained by his conduct in numerous and important civil trusts. These, like his. 




33 

military services, began in early youth; ami the country was finally deprived of them by the 
proscriptive policy of the spoilers. No illustration of that policy can be more striking than the 
tact, that General Harrison was superseded as Minister to Columbia by Thomas P. Moore. 
During the interval General Harrison had been Secretary and Lieutenant Governor of the 
Northwestern Territory, Governor of Indiana, Commissioner to treat with the Indians, Dele¬ 
gate to Congress, Representative to Congress, a Senator in the Legislature of Ohio, and a Sen¬ 
ator ot the United states. I shall not stop to enumerate the results of his labors in these various 
situations. In one of them he acquired for his country a fertile territory of more than sixty 
millions of acres, and on terms at once advantageous to the United States, and just to the In¬ 
dians. The complication of his duties as Governor of Indiana made him, to a great extent, the 
organ of the whole federal power in that Territory, and constantly called into exercise the high¬ 
est administrative talents and moral endowments. As a lawgiver General Harrison was a 
prominent actor in the preparation and discussion of legislative business. Many of the questions 
of the day were of the highest moment. On these, as well as ori others of inferior dignity, 
he was distinguished for close investigation, accuracy of judgment, readiness and skill as a de¬ 
bater, and manly, impressive eloquence; displaying a mind of great native power, strengthened 
by habits ot patient thought, and enlarged and enriched by study. His compositions are nu¬ 
merous, and the work of his own mind exclusively. Indeed, they may be said to be from his 
own pen, in every sense of the phrase, for he was his own amanuensis. They are, like his 
character, straightforward, vigorous, beautiful, and pure. They are the writings of a business 
man, who never stops the stream of his thoughts to hunt for words in which to clothe them, 
but whose good sense and good-taste always bring the right words to him, and put them in the 
right places. 

His moral are as elevated as his intellectual qualities. A sense of justice has been the rule 
of his whole life, public and private. Nothing but the most scrupulous regard to justice could 
have enabled him to execute, with the universal satisfaction which he produced, the vast and 
perilous powers that were delegated to him. Of his justice in private life, let a single illus¬ 
tration suffice. An individual held possession of land in Ohio by a merely equitable title. De¬ 
siring to purchase the legal title, which was in General Harrison, he called on the General and 
proposed terms of compromise. “ Sir,” said General Harrison, “ where I have no moral title 
I have no legal title.” What sublimity in these few simple words ! Mr. Van Buren would 
think them simple in more senses than one. A distinguished statesman of South Carolina has 
said that General Harrison’s victory of the Thames “was such as to have secured to a Roman 
general, in the best days of the republic, the honors of a triumph.” Never did Rome, even in 
the time of Regulus, produce an instance of loftier integrity than the incident just noticed. 

For pecuniary generosity, General Harrison is proverbial. Careful as he has always been 
of the people’s money, of his own he is lavish to a fault. His unbounded liberality is one of 
the many causes of the appellation by which he is familiarly known in the West, “The poor 
man's friend.” He is equally remarkable for that rarer and more enlarged generosity, 
belonging to only noble minds—the generosity which can forgive. Before the battle of Tip¬ 
pecanoe, an agent of the enemy attempted to assassinate him. The agent was discovered, 
tried for the offence, convicted, and sentenced to be shot. General Harrison, the intended 
victim of the murderer’s dagger, interposed and pardoned him. This generous man was once 
constrained, by self-respect, to bring a suit for damages. The jury gave him a verdict for 
several thousand dollars. He distributed one-third of the proceeds of the judgment among the 
orphan children of some of his fellow-citizens who had died in battle ; the residue he restored to 
the very man who had injured him ! 

Besides other characteristics of a w'dl regulated mind, General Harrison’s moderation in 
the exercise of power is conspicuous—a quality, it should be remarked, peculiarly necessary to 
the Chief Magistrate of a Government like ours. The powers conferred on him as commander- 
in-chief of the Northwestern army were almost unlimited. In transmitting the appointment to 
him, the Secretary of War says: “Yeu will command such means as may be practicable ; 
exercise your own discretion ; and act in all cases according to your own judgment.” Scarcely 
less extensive, practically, were the powers of General Harrison as Governor of Indiana. Yet, 
though he held the public interests in a firm unyielding hand, in no instance did he ever com¬ 
mit an arbitrary or oppressive deed ! His practice has ever been conformed to one of the cardi¬ 
nal principles of his political creed. I shall give it in his own nervous language : “ The strong¬ 
est of all Governments is that which is most free.” 

His authority, and his exercise of it, in the government of Indiana, serve also to illustrate the 
disinterestedness of his character. Among the powers appertaining to his office, were those 
of dividing the country into counties and townships, of superintending Indian affairs, and of 
confirming titles to lands. You will readily see what tempting opportunities for acquiring 
wealth were involved in these powers. With such opportunities “ the main pillars of the 
democratic cause'' would have become thanes, barons, suzerains, udallers, patroons, princes, 
Croesuses, Rothschilds, Barings, “monopolists,” “ corporations of associated wealth,’ and what 
not. I had not time, when treating of peculations, to go into Indian matters, or I should now 

3 


34 


ask you to compare the “ principles and policy” of the Administration and its “pillars” on that 
subject, with the conduct of General Harrison —the virtuous Harrison. “ You will not be 
surprised,” though doubtless the “ pillars 1 ' will be, to learn that William Henry Hahiuson 
left this field of temptation poor ; not comparatively merely, but positively poor; so much so, 
that in after years he was glad to be made clerk of a county court, to earn bread for himself 
and his family. This, to be sure, was a large one ; for he always regarded every poor man 
who came to see him, especially an old soldier, as a member of his family. But did I say temp¬ 
tation ? I recall the word. No opportunity of aggrandizing himself indirectly could have 
been a temptation to Harrison, for he had no eyes to see it. The “Reformers” would think 
he was not only blind but foolish. He never knew any title, except a “ moral ” title, to any 
thing. 

Such is the citizen whom the Opposition offer to their country, as fitted for the first place in 
her councils: a citizen experienced in public affairs, intrepid in danger, sagacious and circum¬ 
spect in council, prompt in action, moderate in power, energetic, forbearing, just, generous, and 
kind. 

You have seen that General Harrison is emphatically an honest man ; and his honesty 
alone, in times like the present, would be a sufficient reason for elevating him to the Presidency, 
even were his intellectual endowments less than they confessedly are. It would be strange if a 
man so tried and so proved, were not popular. A.nd where are the bounds to his popularity ? 
The source of it is truly and beautifully stated in half a dozen words by his companions in arms, 
in their address to him on the occasion of the severance of Louisiana from Indiana. The “power 
to gain hearts by virtuous actions.” Our adversaries feel that he is the cause of as much 
“ alarm” to them as they are themselves cause of “alarm” to the country. They see that the 
nation is wakened to a sense of the injuries and deceptions which have been practised on it ; 
that their system is at once detested and despised ; that their only probable, and that not a cer¬ 
tain, refuge from public indignation, is in public contempt; and that, when the question is put, 
as it soon will be, to the people, “Will you permit this Administration to continue in power any 
longer!” the people will answer not “Better let it be,” but “better let it not be;” that the 
people will say, “ our sufferings are [not ts] intolerable,” and have been made so not by “rascally 
postmasters ” only. The faction which gained, and is striving to perpetuate power by false pre¬ 
tences, feel that their candidate for the Presidency is as dead a weight upon their cause as their 
cause is upon him. What! shall a man who has been three times discarded by his own State 
hope for the votes of the other States'! Shall he, whom his own household have “weighed in 
the balance and found wanting”—have branded as an “unprofitable servant,” aspire to be again 
a ruler of the people! Nothing like this has ever yet happened in the Republic, and it is not 
probable that the current of experience will be reversed for the benefit of Mr. Van Buren. As 
to the spoils candidate for the Vice Presidency he cannot, indeed, be said to have lost the sup¬ 
port of his own State, for he never had it. Our candidate for that office is the pride and the 
boast of his State—of Virginia, the land of patriots and statesmen. 

Mr. Van Buren has insinuated that his fellow-citizens were not “ sober” when they elected 
him. He will find that they are sober now. The “ second thought” has come, and come with 
overwhelming force. The people were “sober” when they entrusted him with the power which 
he has so shamefully abused : but they were deceived. They are now undeceived. His former 
supporters are falling off from him in masses. The glorious band of conservatives is growing 
into a multitude : a multitude which by the side of his original opponents will, in cordial union 
and with resistless power, march up to the polls, and peal the political death-knell in his ear. 

Yes, fellow-citizens, our tyrants are alarmed, almost pitiably alarmed. In November, 1838 
as the public documents inform us, in a communication addressed bv one high Executive officer 
to another, on the approach of a dreaded exposure, the writer gave utterance to his emotions in 
the good old Anglo-Saxon ejaculation, “ God help us /” The spoilsmen have far greater rea¬ 
son now to renew this shriek of despair. But it will be in vain. God will not help them. 
No ; if, in their present deserved extremity, they get aid any where, it will be, not from Heaven 
but—from another place. Thence they seem to have received some hints already. They have 
“ hesitated” a change in their “ principles and policy.” They affect to slide a little over to 
Conservative ground. But be not deceived. Be not deceived again. The only change which 
their political necessities make possible in their “principles and policy,” is, a postponement till 
after the election. Re-elect them, and they will go on perfecting their work, and laugh at you 
for having believed their promises of amendment. 

There is no reason to fear that the American people will suffer themselves to be deceived any 
more. Every hour, every minute, is adding fresh strength to the cause of Opposition. “The 
ball is in motion ;” propelled not by a single roller, “solitary and alone,” but by millions of 
awakened, indignant freemen. The patriots of the land are rushing from every quarter, and 
with loud acclaim, to the standard of Harrison and Tyler. 

“ And wild and high the ‘ Cameron’s feathering,’ rose! 

The war note of Lochiel” 


35 


has been sounded in the mountains of the North ; the sound has been echoed in the valleys of 
the South ; it has been re-echoed by the great Father of waters in the West. The “fiery cross,” 
summoning the clansmen of the Constitution, is careering on the wings of the wind. Every¬ 
where is heard the cry, 

“ Speed, Malise, speed!” 

On—on they come; 

“ Their swords they are countless, their bosoms are one.” 

They will not disband till they shall have achieved a victory memorable through all time; till 
they shall have hurled the Spoilers from the high places; till they shall have driven the false 
priests from the desecrated altars; till they shall have raised up and restored the Constitution 
of their country; that Constitution on whose once glorious brow, is “sorrow ploughed by 
shame.” Then will the angry shade of Washington be appeased; for then, the star-spangled 
banner which he won from the oppressor, again will wave over a land of liberty and law, 



■H 

















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




* 

i 



0 021 

288 : 


i .! 


.i. if , 

irv . ;. 



if-;* ■ 

X I' . 

* 

• * p ;; 7 



f( •• r 









S 

1 


■ 














- 















J 










■ 

















■■■ * - 


7 

■ >• ' 















> . t ’ 










- ♦ * 








. 

''' 7 I i -'•* 1 

' '■ 7 #. • 

• 3 V • ... . . • 

i Jiff ■ • 




■J*.l < 

-1 , • " 


'f - pry ■ ' *. «i7* 










■ 7 


v V •! 

, A • . ' ' . .. »’ ■ - * ■ • 5 • ■ •. fri 






